Talk:Jaws (film)/Archive 1

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
thread_title: The ride

message: 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)
thread_title: Extraneous detail, a plea

message: 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)
thread_title: Tragic coincidence

message: "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)
thread_title:  dangerous? 

message: Do we really need this section? I really dislike this type of thing, which tends to be on IMDb anyway. The JPStalk to me 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorable quotes 

message: In the book, Hooper said he was just exagerating when he said that. it should be deleted. KdogDS 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bordering [[Megaladon]] size 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jaws Remake 

message: Isn't "Rip-Offs" unnecessarily POV? FAL 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Change it. Atlant 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rip-Offs

message: 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)
thread_title:  New images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mythbusters Section and Redundancy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyedit tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good article again? 

message: 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:
But otherwise, this article looks good. Great job folks all around!--Esprit15d 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA nom - Passed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem in "Inspirations and influences"

message: 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)
thread_title: JAMES CAMERON IS MAKING A JAWS REMAKE

message: 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  .
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)
thread_title: Very unconvinced about "echoes of New World Symphony"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jaws in other languages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Film/book comparisons

message: This is in reference to  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.
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)
thread_title: citation from other media

message: 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)
thread_title:  S Protection 

message: 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 JPStalk to me 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When woodwork squeaks, out come the freaks. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sound you can hear is that reference whooshing over my head. (I guess it's just a lyric.) The JPStalk to me 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very very annoying,,, 

message: What fun to have on the Main Page.  KP Botany 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicely written pop culture article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No cast section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Plot pruning

message: Anyone forget to mention this is one movie that brought this song back into notice? Zchris87v 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it? It may have been in the film, but was its impact worthy of a mention? Do you have reliable sources? The JPStalk to me 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Show Me the Way to Go Home]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Amityisland.net

message: 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)
thread_title: OR

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mechashark.JPG

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 JPStalk to me 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. Alientraveller (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Brody

message: 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)
thread_title: Quint hardware store scene?

message: 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)
thread_title: That's Some Bad Hat, Harry

message: 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 JPStalk to me 09:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poster

message: 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)
replies: text: That section will be removed shortly anyway. Some of it can be rewritten with real-world context. The JPStalk to me 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 JPStalk to me 10:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. There were a few errors, thanks to some silly little kiddies. The JPStalk to me 08:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bounty on Jaws by Kinter

message: 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)
thread_title: Film genre, again

message: 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)
thread_title: Music

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 JPStalk to me 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The name of the shark

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 JPStalk to me 00:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot & Music too long 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvised scene?

message: 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)
thread_title: SCUBA tank

message: 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)
thread_title: Original "Bruce" shark found in junkyard.

message: User:Chigurgh has seen fit to remove :Category:Films about fishing. Opinions? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the main deal of the movie is to fish. Chigurgh (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In response to both your comments, I'm not alone in my opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you confirm the information with a reliable source? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: summer blockbuster and Star Wars

message: 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)
replies: text: Already dealt with -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some vandalism noted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree if and only if there's reliable third-party discussion regarding the differences. Doniago (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 JPStalk to me 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences between the book and the movie

message: 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)
thread_title: Network Television

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyedit? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Durban, South Africa, 1956 Shark Attacks 

message: "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)
thread_title: Unclear?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Congratulations everyone 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: James Bond character

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Naked swim 

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

text: Found a source for a single-sided PG in 1998. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Provided you have sources, why not be bold and add this information? DonIago (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First DVD release 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quint's boat 

message: 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:
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  Recent changes to the article 

message: An editor is persisting with removing the following claim on the basis the "source is wrong":
I believe this edit is unjustified for the following reasons:
#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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Second-highest grossing "franchise" film 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia 

message: :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". 
* 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)
replies: text: 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===
*  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)
thread_title:  What genre should go in the lead? 

message: *  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)
thread_title: Discussion