Memo to Spielberg: Hands off "Jaws!"

Excellent point! Nothing works like good narrative and strong characters: just imagine what could've been if Avatar had not tried to be a remake of Pocahontas meets Dances with Wolves...

I saw "Jaws" for the first time in June, 1975, at the Amuzu theatre in Southport, North Carolina. The sound was bad, the seats were worse. But it didn't matter. I was 11 and came out of that theatre with an intense curiosity about the art of filmmaking - intense enough to lead to a career in the industry as a film editor (ironically enough, I was one of the editors on "The Pacific" a Spielberg/Tom Hanks coproduction).

Who knows if this is seriously being considered, but if so, I hope someone can talk him out of it. The beast in "Jaws" may have been an imperfect creature, but it became the vehicle for the quintessential American cinematic experience - very much a product of it's time and impossible to recreate.

Yikes!
Remember that time when Spielberg and Lucas decided to remake Raiders of the Lost Ark (1982)?

Trey Parker and Matt Stone speak out about it.

Hi Gerardo, what good timing. I came across this article today at Yahoo Movie Talk:

The War of 'Star Wars' Fans and George Lucas

Oh, the horror of them remaking Jaws! I am in total agreement with you on that. It is also one of my top 5 favorite movies- maybe my favorite if you go by how many times I have seen a movie. I, for one, do not think the shark looks fake. It scares the heck out of me even when it is on the ship snapping away.

As for the remake of the "planet of the apes"- you are correct that it was too fast moving. Another problem was that it seemed like they stuck stupid little jokes throughout the movie, which ruined the material; in the original, from start to finish, everything that occurred was taken seriously- even those things that one might have smiled at, such as Cornelius and his wife when they interacted like any other human married couple. This made them more realistic.

I found the speed of the recent "Wolf Man" to be a problem, too. I could not believe how quickly Del Toro's character arrived home and how quickly the Wolf Man appeared. I thought this was going to be a nice atmospheric movie that built up suspense. Nope- just people getting torn apart no different than a cheap slasher flic. How disappointing, especially because I waited a year to see it.

Cameron is probably making all the money he is because he takes his time in his movies. I did not care for Titanic, but at least he waited till the end of the movie to sink the ship. Other filmmakers would have sent the iceberg floating towards the ship within the first half hour.

Reply to: maybe that colorful remake of PSYCHO years ago told me all bets are off....

The first half of Psycho was Janet Leigh's story, and the second half was Tony Perkins'. I think Leigh could have been replaced without hurting the story, but Perkins was essential.

After the Olympics, I saw an interview with Gold Medalist Evan Lysacek, and I thought "He could do the Tony Perkins role. He's got the same vibe."

George Lucas has always defended his tinkering by saying, "I started with a framework for the entire Saga in my mind, but the first movie was only 60% of what I wanted to see on the screen." So, he's not changing it so much as finishing it. There were a few new shots that didn't work, but most of the changes are seamless and you never notice them.

Steven said that "Keys" (Peter Coyote) was supposed to be an adult version of Elliott. "Keys" was anxious to meet an ambassador from a more advanced civilization than our own, and his team would never be carrying rifles as they searched for a reported landing site. Being politically correct had nothing to do with removing the rifles.

Still haven't received my link for the new Ebert club.

I agree completely. JAWS is one of those films that gets better the more you watch it, the more you know about its making, the more you deconstruct it. It's a modern classic, but also a movie of its time, one that would be very different if attempted today.

Remakes don't always suck, but they do a lot of the time, simply because magic is often luckily stumbled into rather than coldly planned out. Lightning isn't really in the habit of striking two or three times in the same place.

I hate the Psycho remake, but at least it was done by Gus Van Sant and not by a kid with no artistic aspirations. In fact, when Ebert asked Van Sant why he remade the film in the first place, he said it was "so that nobody else would have to".

Now, the thing about Jaws is that NOBODY has ever remade any of Spielberg's films. I think this is because he is still ranked among the five most powerful filmmakers working today, and judging from the past decade (particular with wonderful films like A.I., Minority Report and Munich), his intellect remains alive and well. Remakes are usually only spawned by filmmakers who have significantly slowed down in the last decade- i.e. John Carpenter, Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, etc.

Interesting...there is a classic episode of South Park (season 6, episode 609) that echoes some of the sentiments expressed in this piece:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/609/?

Your comments about films having to be "seen as a reflection of their time" mirror what I wrote on my blog about a week ago, during my fond look back at one of my favorite movies of all time, King Kong (1933). Though I have not seen the Peter Jackson remake (and at least he remade the entire film from scratch), my argument was that the reason the original continues to hold up today--even in the face of the critically acclaimed Jackson version--is because it is both timeless and evokes a specific time and place. I also used the example of Lucas tinkering with the original Star Wars movies as distracting us from the feelings and emotions burnt into the specific celluloid images that we saw the first time around.

Even worse, the original versions of those films will never be put on DVD, as the boxed set contains the Special Edition (of course, the box doesn't tell you that, as if the other versions were rough drafts). If you want the originals on DVD, you'll have to find the remastered versions on tape and buy a VCR to DVD converter. I don't mind Lucas releasing updated versions of his movies (though it shows he doesn't understand what made them popular in the first place), but I do mind his erasure of the original films from the public domain.

jaws is an important film for me for three reasons.

1. it's the first time i had read a book and then saw the film afterward. it was also the first "grown up" book i ever read. it was for a book report in 6th grade. fortunately, my teacher had not read it or she might not have allowed it. i was disappointed when the sexually suggestive scenes weren't included.

B. it was the first "grown up" movie i saw. i went with a cousin and friends, no parents. it was the first movie i saw that wasn't the aristocrats or something of that nature.

III. it was the first movie i ever watched for not just the story but for the movie-making process. until then, i just sat back and waited to be amazed. with jaws, i watched and thought about what was going on off camera. roughly a year after the movie came out, i read a book about the making of the movie. it caused me to want to work in the movies. okay, so it didn't work out, but i can still dream like everyone else.

as with the flood of other recent remakes (the brady bunch, get smart, little rascals, posiden adventure, wild wild west, etc.) i have no interest in seeing it.

The problem with CGI, in my opinion, is that it will never look real, not truly anyway. It can be realistic, and in some cases, it is the closest we can ever really achieve (particularly in some sci-fi and fantasy films, although there are some very impressive creations prior to the advent of CGI). But if you can create, using makeup or mechanics, something out of real life, it will always look far more realistic than anything a computer can produce. The shark from "Jaws" may not have been able to appear as often as he had wanted because it was mechanical, but the limited exposure kept it looking realistic enough when it did appear. Even if you have James Camerons' budget to create the shark, it will never look as realistic as the ocean behind it or the people it's eating.

As an aside, that clip from Deep Blue Sea has reminded me of this hilarious clip from The Asylum's "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" - cinematic gold.

Although I do understand your reasoning I can't agree with it. Indeed why tamper with perfection for the sake of a few bucks but at the same time who are you (we) to tell a filmmaker not to change, adapt or modernize his of her films.

After all one cannot plagiarize it's own work so if one does we might as well accept it and let it be. Besides, nobody is forcing you to go see it and you still have the original copy that you can enjoy time and time again.

Even though I wholeheartedly agree with the precise example used in your 1st point I have to object to your conclusions about CGI. Personally I don't see it anymore or should I say I don't pay attention to it. Over time I have come to accept it and now I only pay attention to the concept or idea behind it's use.

As such I find that two of your examples were not wisely chosen. James Bond surfing a HUGE tidal wave is pretty awesome in my book. 007 was always meant to personify a man that is more than a man but not too much, thus that particular example strikes just the right note. Sure they could've done it differently and without the use of CGI but it's there, why not use it.

***

I am a young filmmaker and the more I do and learn about the art, the skills and the craft the more I come to realize that most critics have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to criticize the technical aspect of the movies.

-Editing is hardly mentioned and when it is it will be in short meaningless sentences. Also you have the tendency to give merit to mediocre work, case in point The Dark Knight

-Outstanding work with steadicam, cranes and dollies are never mentioned even though, when heavily employed, make or break the film.

-Directorial work is as good as the shotlist that was used, I am not talking about composition here but how the shots were used to create and maintain the flow of the picture. Case in point Neil Jordan's "The Brave One is by far one of the best shotlist that I ever seen, it has no flaw whatsoever, it was a bliss to watch. Truly outstanding work. Was it ever mentioned in the 4-5 reviews that I've read...no

I could go on and on but let's stick to CGI which the main crux of many critics and the most talked about aspect when it comes to the technical side of movies. So what do I hear and read 95% of the time: "CGI was bad" or "I could so see the CGI".

Well I got news for you critics, everybody does. You are not special because you saw it nor are you special because you are talking about it. In this day and age even casual movie goers can see CGI from a mile away but they accept it and let the artistry spark their imagination, why cant you?.

I mean it wasn't perfect when stop motion was used, the same for miniatures and early keying, hell even makeup took a long time to take a hold. It is a movie, not reality, you should treat it has such and not focus on CGI only.

By the way how do you know it is CGI? Because has the FX supervisor on Star Wars Episode 1 so eloquently put it: "The amazing thing is that in shot X there is CGI, miniatures and painting and nobody can tell which is what".

To me keying is also part of the CGI family, well at least in the same ballpark. Usually it is pretty well done it today's movies but here and there bad keying will pop up and completely detract me from the experience. Now that is one thing that you critics have no idea about because I've never, ever read about it. Case in point: Jim Emmerson's thought on Shutter Island"s opening shots, he thought that they were back projections???

Well they weren't and the keying was atrociously bad not to mention that it was consistently bad throughout the whole movie. I try to set him right and here's the answer I got (my post is way down):

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/02/shhhhhhhhutter_up_critics.html

Pretty weak answer if you ask me and kinda proves my point about critic's total lack of knowledge for certain aspects of cinema.

I hope you didn't take any of this personally, everything after the *** was directed toward critics in general. It's just that your article let out something that has been brewing in me for a long time now.

You want good CGI well here it is. Sure this is a video game but I found that in this simple 9 minute review there are more innovative imagery and concepts than the entire Avatar movie and it didn't cost 300 million to make it.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-final-fantasy/62720

Also if you want to see the "Titanic scale" expression being push far beyond reach take a look at this. I wish movies had the kind of artistry

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-god-of-war/62753

Phil

I think Spielberg should remake Jaws 2 with Richard Dreyfus reprising his role from the original.

To my understanding, Spielberg and Dreyfus were willing to make Jaws 2 at least after they completed Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

It was a shame that the studio got so greedy in 78' and rushed Jaws 2 into production before Spielberg and Dreyfus could do it after completing Close Encounters.

A Spielberg directed Jaws 2 remake would be a better sequel than what we got.

You've Nailed dude.

I totally agree. CGI should be used to enhance a scene, not make it completely on computer.

Star Wars Episode 1-3 had problems because of so much cgi-fest. It end up looking TOO SMOOTH, every shot and cgi character looked like the monolight from 2001. A free from dirt surface that looks from another world.

We can sustain the cgi-fest in Star Wars because everything is from another planet and galaxy. But when they try to emulate reality with CGI it ends up looking more fake.

Some of the shots of Rome in GLadiator look MORE FAKE than Ben Hur. A movie that's 40 years older than the previous one looks more fake? Bring back the Matte Painting back and enhance it with CGI. That's the trick.

The great thing about Jaws is that the shark in only on screen like 6 min the whole movie. If spielberg makes it again, the shark will be on screen like 70% of the movie and will end up being annoying and taking the suspense away from the shots.

Couldn't agree more! Jaws is at least one of my top 5 favorite movies. I will sign any petition, participate in any march, or kidnap any studio exec to keep this from happening (I'm kidding by the way. I don't do marches.)!

Mario: I thought the success of “Jaws” was owed in no small part to the fact that Spielberg was smart enough to take along on that boat: a) one character whose fear we could identify with (Scheider), b) one who made us feel very uneasy (Shaw) and c) one who could make us laugh and help release the tension (Dreyfuss).
If Avatar is truly a remake, then I'm all for those.

Marta: not only is the creature in "Jaws" impossible to recreate. Because of my age when this movie opened, because of the time period and the kind of movies I had seen up to then, I don't think I'll ever have a movie experience in my life quiet as special as seeing "Jaws" in a theater for the first time.
There's your picture and credits on the IMDB !

Chris: the following item (my answer to Robert) is also related to that very youtube clip you provided:

Robert: For some reason I can't open you link but I imagine it must refer to the story about the "The people vs. George Lucas" documentary, which I saw this morning on CNN. I would love to do a piece about what exactly was right and what exactly was wrong about the "Star Wars" prequels because I believe part of all that's been said is true but part is simply owed to the age of the internet we live in and the way stories are bounced all around the world, in real time. I think this would make an excellent story and I may just give it a shot in the not too distant future.

theallbadhat: when Tim Burton made his "Planet of the Apes" he had such a perfect model on what worked so well from the previous version, I find his remake totally clueless of what made the original great.
I found "The Wolfman" so absolutely un-scary, that trying to understand the reasons for this has become somewhat of an obsession to me. I hope to be able to talk about this subject in the not too distant future.

Bill: we'll never know if any actor today could play Norman Bates, all we know for sure is that Vince Vaughn wasn't the right choice by a long-shot.
I agree with you in the sense that Lucas could have gotten away with some modifications to the original trilogy such as when he made Luke's speeder ride more smoothly over Tatooine but adding new characters that do silly little things (such as the creatures shown at Luke's arrival in Mos Eisley), was just disheartening to me.
I also don't think the guys carrying rifles on E.T. were from "Keys" team, actually they seemed like Feds to me.

Rish: I believe “Jaws” is exhibit “A” on catching lighting in a bottle. This is not to take any credit from Spielberg whose genius can’t be denied.

Adam: I believe anybody, even a director of foot deodorant commercials could have done that Psycho remake. It is beyond me which of Gus Van Sant's attributes contributed to anything in that movie.
My point on this piece is that the only director ever to remake a Spielberg film was Spielberg himself (see the new version of E.T.).

Literary Dreamer: at least Spielberg (unlike Lucas) gave his audience the option of choosing from the older or newer versions of E.T. No wonder those over-zealous “Star Wars” fans are so upset at Lucas.

Richard: I suppose you are referring to "The Jaws Log" which is an excellent "making of" book. The documentary on the 15th. anniversary DVD edition is also phenomenal and a most see for any fan of the movie, it explains in great detail why much of the novel’s content was avoided which made a lot of sense in the world to me.

Alexandra: that shark on the clip, eating a plane is just about as realistic as the ones on "Deep Blue Sea", and that is no exaggeration.
If you look closely, most of the shark hunting scenes in “Jaws” have all sorts of continuity problems such as very different “skies”: clear, cloudy, semi-clear and what have you. This ends up being irrelevant, all we know for sure that’s a real boat in the real sea and this is all that matters.

Philippe: I may not be anybody to tell Spielberg what he can or can't do but that sure won't stop me from giving my opinion.
If you think the "Die Another Day" tsunami wave was realistic, please see the real wave from the very beginning of that very same movie and then tell me they look like they belong in the same universe at all.
I refuse to accept bad CGI because I've seen great CGI, I simply don't think every director out there is qualified to even touch it.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate the obvious dedication it took.

Christopher: personally I'm grateful neither Spielberg or Dreyfuss took part in "Jaws 2". I can accept a movie series in which a hero such as Indiana Jones has new adventures, I can't buy a shark coming back for revenge or any other reason whatsoever.

Paolo: If the shark in "Jaws" was only on screen for about 6 minutes (which may very well be true), then why did we leave the theater feeling like it was in just about the whole second half of the movie?
The answer to that is one of the main reasons why "Jaws" is such a great movie.

The director has the right to decide if and when his film is finished. The great films will live forever. The director should have the right to leave behind his own legacy. Everyone else should leave the film alone. That includes stretching and pulling the aspect ratio to fit a screen or mutilating the film for time and/or content. But if Peter Jackson were to come to his senses and re-edited "King Kong" I for one would stand up and cheer.

The CGI in E.T. is not perfect, but works on the whole because it gives E.T. much more of an emotional range. The quality is mostly seamless, save for some awkward moments with CGI bathtub water and toothpaste. When he's running through the woods in the opening scenes, it feels like he is actually running. Compare that with the original effects where you can tell he's on a track. The film is so emotionally compelling that the crudeness of the original special effect probably would be more distracting to the film than these updates. Though endearing, they come off as quaint and dated. Yes, the replacement of guns with walkie talkies and the dubbing of the word terrorist with hippies is strange, but I only noticed it because I had seen the movie about 8 times in the theater back when it came out. Spielberg's E.T. is a gift of love for childhood, and I found that the updates did not diminish it's impact, but actually enhanced it.

While I agree completely about what Gerardo and most of you are saying about the use of CGI in films, I'm finding it difficult to get worked up about a possible "Jaws" remake. Meaning, I doubt it will happen. Not from Spielberg. My impression, from what I've heard from Spielberg himself, is that he is not at all dissatisfied with the film he made.

Find a copy of Richard Schickel's documentary "Spielberg on Spielberg." In it, he talks about the many problems with the mechanical sharks during the making of "Jaws" -- which is the actual reason that you don't see the shark until past the midway point. However, he soon realized that this "mistake" turned out to be the film's greatest effect! It is much more terrifying to suddenly see this thing in the flesh (so to speak) after a long delay during which we're only dimly aware of its shape, size, speed, power, etc. When the shark finally reveals itself to the characters -- and the audience -- it's simply one of the greatest moments in film, ever! Spielberg is completely aware of this. To suggest that he'd put the shark on the screen for 70% of the movie in a remake is to suggest that Spielberg doesn't understand what he accomplished with the first film.

On a related subject, is anyone as worked up as I am that Scorcese is remaking Haneke's "Cache"?

I don't think this is very likely to happen. Spielberg has plenty of projects in the pipeline, he has no need of money and it is a well known fact he had a miserable experience making the original Jaws. Why would he want to remake it?

What you should be concerned about is George Lucas meddling with Star Wars again and re-releasing them all in 3D. I would bet serious money on that being announced very soon.

I don't think CGI - or any of the other 'evils' (I am told) for that matter, shootouts, Deus Ex machinae (?), boobs, this-can-only-happen-in-a-movie coincidences, or boobs - itself is ever a problem, it just has to be used right. Realism really is a subjective thing - I personally thought the zombies in I Am Legend looked ok, the only problem was they were scarier as fleeting shadows than when they all jumped on to our 'Legend's truck. The CGI in Matrix Reloaded (old movie, but I love reliving the disappointment) was cheesy at points, but what really mattered was that all the brawling on-screen was completely inconsequential.

So if Speilberg wants to update the look, good for him. I didn't notice anything spectacular in the Star Wars rejig myself, but I'm lazy when it comes to these things. That said, I COMPLETELY agree with your argument that a movie - even the worst - is a record of its times, a piece of history and shouldn't really be tampered with. More importantly, it doesn't NEED to be tampered with, and that time can be spent doing something new and more worthwhile. Hm, that's all.

P.S: Just 'saw' your other argument that in a 'digitised update' the original 'method' or technique could be lost forever. Kids might not even realise you could create on-screen magic without cracking open Maya or 3dsMax. I myself thought for a long time that the 'dino-breath-mist-on-glass' effect in Jurassic Park (my first creature feature as a kid) was done with CGI!

I'm waiting for "Schindler's List - The Musical" or "1941 - The Day After"...

Ah, but the immortal JAWS has ALREADY been altered.

Pay close attention the next time you watch the 30th anniversary DVD; the original horn-like whalesong heard by our heroes on board the Orca has been replaced by a newer (and presumably more accurate) sound effect by parties unknown prior to the film's 2005 video re-release.

Apparently nothing is sacred.

I read that Speilberg removed the guns in ET at the request of Drew Barrymore. Now, I adore Drew, but that was a bad decision. If history has taught us anything, it's that Man will respond to anything alien by trying to kill it! Remaking Jaws...some things you are not even necessary. For sure, one of the best scenes in Jaws, if not the history of Cinema, is the "USS Indianapolis" scene with Dreyfuss and Shaw. No CGI that has ever been can duplicate that!

I appreciate your concern, but if there's no evidence that Spielberg has any intention of doing this, why worry yourself?

99% sure this is how the remake of Jaws will end up: http://j.mp/b98oA1

RE: star wars originals on DVD

They exist. I was lucky enough to pick them up when the Star Wars exhibit was at the museum of science and industry a few summers ago. Actually, it was a 2-dvd set for each film - 1 disc is the most recent updated version, and 1 is the original theatrical edition. I picked up all 3 movies/6 dvds.

They were only $20 each to boot! What a steal.

I completely agree with several posters above on this topic. I personally consider Jaws to be one of the greatest movies of all time -- like someone said, a lot of cinematic magic is stumbled upon with pure luck.

The fact that they did have such problems with the shark just led to a far better outcome, one where suspense and creativity with camera work made a far more memorable atmosphere than a show-you-the-shark effort would have.

I feel that directors who are truly interested in movies and public responses should know by now that CGI is meant to enhance shots only. The reason why the effects in older movies like "The Thing" and "Tremors" are still passable is because the crew really made something physical. CGI work from scratch can never quite emulate shooting something that is really there and really interacting with the actors in that lighting.

I'm in a minority, but I'm going to admit that whilst Avatar was good in my opinion, there were a number of instances that I found myself aware of the fact that I was in a cinema watching CGI blue people talking and moving around. I was never quite carried away.

I hope that Spielberg doesn't touch Jaws, simply because it has such an excellent, real quality about it. The original still has a lot to offer younger generations -- remember, if you give younger people a choice, they will often watch the remake only. Most have never seen the movies mentioned here -- the original Psycho, Poseidon Adventure, Rear Window, etc. It makes me disappointed to think that such great older films might be slowly "phased out", where no one can even have to opportunity to allow a deeper appreciation of good, well-paced films to grow. If you just keep giving them ridiculous "Die Another Day" style overkill, it's all they'll understand.

*sigh* I must be extra tired on this Monday morning because I read the title of this article as "Memo from Spielberg:
Hands off "Jews!"

I was expecting a piece on social justice and had a good laugh at my own expense when I realized my mistake.

Gerardo,

Your dry, biting wit had me laughing out loud. Great review.

Omer M

Andy: I just hope I didn’t give these guys any ideas they hadn’t thought about so far.

Drakar2007: you are obviously right. Funny thing is that they were also not remastered like the new editions were. From the reviews I read, I gathered the copies weren’t in too good a shape.

NHBill: the director has the right to do what he wants, that doesn’t mean we have to like it.

Shawn: the CGI effects on E.T. may be more advanced than the old ones but a) That’s not the film we grew on and b) I don’t seem to remember anybody complaining before.

Kristine: “the making of” documentary on the 15th. Anniversary edition is just phenomenal. Producer Richard Zanuck states there that if they hadn’t come up with the idea of substituting the shark with shots of barrels and ropes, “they’d still be out there (at sea) trying to get the shark to work”. The final result, I agree with you, was just perfect.

Kevin T.: I agree Spielberg has no need for the money, but that didn’t stop him from making Jurassic Park II.

Dev: It seemed to me that in “I am Legend”, not only did the laws of gravity and physics did not apply to the zombies but also that the lion that appeared early on the movie looked like a mutant, they completely ruined what to me would have been a rather good movie otherwise.

Phasmos: I checked it a couple of days ago and noticed nothing new from the dozens of times I’ve watched the film.

kitano0: According to Spielberg himself, the Indianapolis scene is his very favorite in the movie, can’t blame him, it truly gives me the chills.

Chris O: I hope you are right but if history tells us anything involving money……..

Greg: I’m even more concerned about the remaining 1%.

Waldo: I’m more than a little curious about what Lucas will do when “Star Wars” hits Blue-ray in the not too distant future.

Kelly: I simply believe directors feel CGI is so good, they can get into an “auto-pilot mode” and everything will be great.
My favorite scenes in “Avatar” were when we actually saw the Neytiri actually touched Jake because that was when you best were able to appreciate just how perfect those effects where (and just how big those blue guys where).

Tim: that’s an altogether a different article.

Omer: I’m very glad you enjoyed it and I’m really looking forward your next piece. Best.

Hi Gerardo, here it is

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-people-vs-george-lucas.html

It'd be nice to hear your thoughts on the Star Wars prequels. I thought Star Wars lost something when it was brought to a full arc. Though, of course, it was very enjoyable, too.

I saw Jaws the summer it opened at a drive in theatre in Perry, Ga. I was 8, far too young to see that movie, but my parents took me; it scarred me for life! To this day, I don't swim in the ocean, get nervous swimming in the lake and when I swim (or more specifically, tread water) in a pool, I visualize what my legs look like from below to a shark swimming towards me. No other film has impacted my life so profoundly. Without a doubt, my favorite movie. I would never taint my memories by seeing a remake.

I can't believe it! I have been telling my friends for years that the remakes are out of control, and that the day they remake Jaws is the day I give up on Hollywood. Ha ha ha! What a coincidence for me to find this article.

Thankfully, lots of remake movies are usually not so great and they fade quickly from audience's memorie even if they're abysmal. And they will remain as small(and probably disgracing) footnotes to originals. If they are really going make new "Jaws", don't be disappointed about that. There is always original "Jaws" for us.

I don't believe in the sanctity of originality. I am open to the possibilities when a remake come along. Whether it's good or not doesn't break my skull, because I'm not directly involved. I have preferred quite a few few remakes to their originals, and I'm not afraid to say so.

I agree with your CGI comments 100%, though. Great article.

I'm starting to wonder if Spielberg should retire. First he attempts to remake Oldboy w/ Will Smith (thank God that got canned), and now a supposed Jaws remake. Jaws is my favorite movie of all time and cannot be duplicated, even by it's maker. If Spielberg wants to fiddle around with sharks and CGI, why doesn't he do the Meg series that they're trying to bring to the big screen? Ok...I admit I just want the Meg movie to happen.

The original Star Wars movies were indeed released on DVD in 2-disc editions (which also included the special edition). I stand corrected! I am still annoyed, however, that the trilogy box sets do not mention ANYWHERE that they only include the special editions.

And yes, I do give props to Spielberg for including both the original and the updated versions of E.T. in the 2-disc DVD set. Even the original cut from Amadeus was bundled with the theatrical release, so that viewers can compare and decide which version they prefer (but that is a little different from updating a movie with the latest special effects in order to "perfect" it.)

I heard something on the commentary track for King Kong that was interesting. The two commentators, Ray Harryhausen and Ken Ralston, were talking about CGI. They pointed out that continuity and perfection were often sacrificed in King Kong for excitement. The problem today, as they put it, is that some CGI artists think all their work has to look perfect, but by looking perfect, it looks faker than something that is obviously fake (like stop-motion animation) looks.

It's also a matter of effectiveness. Or, to put it another way, which Kong is scarier: the one from 1933, or the one from 2005?

I guess we could easily forget how much of a creative genius Spielberg is. Maybe, just maybe, he has taken all this into consideration and will make a true masterpiece of a masterpiece. Lucas was all about the money. Has Spielberg gone totally commercial as well? A PG-13 Jaws? Likey, yes. But it might just be frightening as hell. The last Raiders did little to encourage me. But we can only hope...

Robert: thanks so much, I’ve already finished the article and hope to tape it sometime soon, To me the issue isn’t the prequels as much as the audiences’ reaction as well as their gargantuan expectations

Hollis: my first viewing of “Jaws” on April 15th. 1976 remains the most unrepeatable movie experience of my life, that’s why after years of watching great movies, it still remains my favorite.

Anthony: this article happens to be the result of countless conversations about the subject with friends. The best way to put it, is that this piece wrote itself.

Seongyong: couldn’t agree more.

Christopher: just for the record, here are some remakes I like:
“3:10 to Yuma” (much better than the original)
“The Italian Job” (a very nice movie that borrows plenty from the original but very much stands on it’s own with plenty of new ideas).
King Kong (more on that below).
There was room for improvement on both cases, there is non-whatsoever in “Jaws”.

Jared: it’s never safe to count out Spielberg. After “Always” and “Hook” I really thought he was history, and you know the rest…..

Literary Dreamer: Generalizing does have its problems, just look a the new version of “King Kong”, it has countless shots of the creature up close and never did my subconscious doubt I was watching something alive. Same applies to Golum on “Lord of the Rings”
Still, comparing both versions of “King Kong” is apples and oranges, I happen to love each for what they are.

Brad: the last Indiana Jones was, in my opinion, the best examples that some subjects would be better left alone. I didn’t think it was a terrible movie but it’s light years from the original. My point on this article is that too many things went right when “Jaws” was made and I very much doubt that could ever be the case again.

I forgot just how bad DIE ANOTHER DAY was. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm going to make this short and sweet: CGI looks every bit as fake as claymation, optical effects, models on wires, and everything ever done as a special effect, CGI just simply looks cooler, that's all, not more realistic. unless it's used in a very subtle way

No remakes of Jaws. PLEASE !!! Leave that classic alone. If a Jaws continuity is to be pursued take it in a completely new direction. Such as: www.rhcomix.com/rocky.htm

I must stand corrected from my previous comment, I never realized that the special edition DVDs of E.T. included both versions. D'oh! Now for them to release it as a Blu-ray set...

@Gerardo, regarding the Star Wars theatrical editions 'remastering': I'm unsure of the exact details, but AFAIK the original editions *were* remastered to a certain extent for the 1995 "THX edition" release, which was the final VHS (and laserdisc AFAIK) release before the Special Editions were first released in theaters.

@Literary Dreamer: To clarify, the initially-released SW trilogy box set *doesn't* include the original versions, which i'll agree is irritating -- the ones that do include the original versions are really only to be found individually (at least the three make a matching set). They're the ones labeled as "limited edition"; any others you find won't have the original versions.

BTW, on the subject of remakes... I absolutely loved the 2005 version of King Kong (i support Roger's notion that it was one of the best movies of 2005) -- it worked because it wasn't just a remake, it was made with a sense of style, and with plenty of reverence for the original (just watch the credits). It wasn't a "remake for the sake of having a remake" like so many are - and I'm perfectly fine with remakes which add something or are well-made. Anyway, wasn't The Wizard of Oz a remake of a silent movie?

Matt: when I say “a bad CGI shot has the power to awake us from the spell of an otherwise good movie”, those words were based on my experience watching “Die Another Die” (though the invisible car didn’t help).

Rick Klemczewski : do not agree. At least many of those techniques have the ability to hide their nature if done right, with CGI you look at the screen and realize immediately “that is CGI”.

Rick Howell: that's about as believable as a shark coming back to take revenge on the family of those who killed his ancestor (or cousin, or whatever).

Drakar2007: Two things.
You are absolutely right about the 1995 re-mastering of the “Star Wars” original trilogy, however, when the second wave of those DVDs was released I read an article in thedigitalbits.com about how shabbily they looked compared to the digital re-mastering which took place in the early 00s. On my part I simply felt enough was enough and did not bother to purchase a whole new “Star Wars” DVD set.
For a moment there I had to remember that was your opinion about the “King Kong” remake and not mine because you wrote exactly how I felt about that movie. I agree how wonderful those titles where and I loved the color Peter Jackson chose for them (the originals were obviously in B&W but somehow it felt like the new ones were the exact color versions of those).

I've always considered CGI effects like a toupee. It might be a very, very, very good toupee but you can always tell it's a toupee. Of course if it is a bad toupee...

There's something about watching Lawrence of Arabia and knowing that when you see a hundren horsemen, you are actually seeing a hundred horsemen.

Gerardo: "At least many of those techniques have the ability to hide their nature if done right, with CGI you look at the screen and realize immediately 'that is CGI'."

As a movie buff and FX enthusiast, I can't agree with this. When CGI is used in a subtle way - to enhance a shot, to add people or buildings (or subtract same) from a background - you can stare right at it and not have any idea you're looking an effect. That's almost never been true of old school effects, no matter how lovingly done. When CGI is put in center stage - to create a dinosaur, person, airplane, or what have you - then yes, it almost always fails to "hide its nature." But so do all other effects. Stop motion and the variants on it never look real, or not like what they really are. Most types of effects always reveal themselves if you know what you're looking for, and in many cases even if you really don't. Likewise, really good CGI doesn't always look so artificial. I still believe that about 80% of the CGI dinosaur effects in the original "Jurassic Park" were nearly flawless in creating something that looked like it had heft and weight, and actually occupied the same reality as the people acting in the movie. There are 20% worth of exceptions (the herd of bird-like dinosaurs running across the field), but that movie gave movie-goers good reason to have high hopes for the future of CGI. Unfortunately many movies since have rushed or under-spent on their effects, or hired bad FX houses and artists, which results in the kind of crap you see in "Van Helsing" and its ilk. The summer blockbuster is misusing and wasting the potential of CGI - but its forerunners (the B horror and sci movies) were just as wasteful of stop motion, rubber suits, optical effects, miniatures, etc. In truth the A+ effects artisan and the A+ director who really knows how maximize his effects while minimizing the flaws are both rare birds, and rarely work together. We should be grateful that a "Jurassic Park" comes along even as often as it does.

I saw "Jaws" at a drive-in movie theatre when it first came out. I saw it in Moab, Utah, which is in the middle of the desert, for heaven's sake. Yet I was still scared to death driving home. That tells me how powerfully well done that movie was. Why would Spielberg feel any need to "improve" on a masterpiece? Then again, he did dump Amy Irving for Kate Capshaw, so go figure.

I have a copy of "The Truth About Charlie" which (for those of you who don't know) is a remake of "Charade. My in-laws didn't want it and neither did I until I saw that as a bonus feature they included the original. Every time someone is looking through my movies they inevitably stop at that one and ask about it. I sigh and explain that we only keep it around for "Charade". I did give the new version a try but, honestly? How do you replace Audrey Hepburn? Ever? And the day that someone tells me Marky Mark is the new Cary Grant is the day that I shoot and kill someone (as long as it's also the day I happen to have a gun in my hand).

Frank: that’s the problem, Lawrence of Arabia was an extraordinary movie which went out of its way to give you a hundred horsemen, these days any summer release will have a thousand horsemen but they just won’t look and feel the same.

Specialagentdalecoope: the success of the “Jurassic Park” dinosaurs is how Spielberg combined CGI shots with a life size dinosaur robot, hence the “never repeat the same trick twice” statement. You really have to see that movie several times in order to identify which is which. You are right on what else made those effects successful, and when you mention the dinosaur herds, isn’t it ironic that the 1993 version of CGI you mention is much, much better done than the herds of deer in “I Am Legend”, or the absolutely unrealistic lion at the beginning of that very same movie, made 14 years later?

Tim: I guess that’s the reason why “Jaws” was so enjoyable, sure it scared the heck out of everybody but unless you watched it on a cruise, it wouldn’t haunt you like, say, “The Exorcist” every time you watched a door or a bed (or pea soup for that matter).

A movie has to be seen as a reflection of its time, there are no two ways about this. You don't put arms on the Venus de Milo in order to improve it. If you don't like how your movie looks today, start again from scratch.......or maybe not (more on that later).

Completely. Agree.

After reading his essay and listening to his plea, Gerardo had me on his side about how certain movies shouldn't be remade by the director.

But then I listened to the South Park episode that tried to say the same thing, and I realized it's wrong to ask directors to not do what they want. In the South Park episode the kids said they wanted to make a club to protect movies from the director. And that horrified me more than a movie being re-made.

Seeing a remake of a movie doesn't ruin the original. I've seen every version of I Am Legend including even the Mark Dacoscos one, and the 1970's Omega Man with Charlton Heston is still the best. Did I like the recent remake with Will Smith or the spoof in the beginning of "Strange Brew"? Yes, but it didn't ruin Charlton Heston's version, and I'm glad so many people took their best cracks at making a good movie.

I can't count how many versions of Hamlet I've seen, both on Stage, in book and on film. There are probably at least 3 or 4 great ones (Kenneth Branau's, Mel Gibson's and 2 or 3 more), and they're all significantly different interpretations, but I was richer for having seen each one.

They remade the wonderful cartoon of The Grinch that Stole Christmas, and I remember thinking, "How could they try to top a movie narrated by Boris Karlov?" The remake was horrible, but so what. The Boris one is still there and still a treat.

If anyone made Jaws #1 again and it was terrible, it still wouldn't hurt Jaws #1. But heck, maybe it would be good; and if any director wants to make a movie, heck if I'd beg them not to make it.

Go for it, I say. At worst I won't like it, but so what. I'd no sooner eschew something I want just because someone else doesn't want me to do it than I'd have someone else eschew their goals.

Art is art.

Seth Green's "Robot Chicken" did a silly riff on that same nightmare a while back.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/56443/detail/

This seems like another good opportunity for me to mention that the original theatrical release of BLOOD SIMPLE is not available on any home video format.
The laser disc comes closest.

This is NOT the case with the films you are discussing here. The originals are still out there, so why would I care about a remake?

Don't like it? Don't watch it.

Jaws is one of my favorite movies. Whenever it is on AMC, I can't stop my myself from watching it, even though I know the dialog almost word-by-word.
I think the best argument for NOT remaking Jaws can be found in the movies three terrible sequels.

ok seriously? come on...let me just say I saw Jaws when i was extremely young. to this day I have an issue with getting in the water. Thats true horror right there. To be able to affect people with a movie like that takes a cinematic genius like Spielberg. I am now a film major because of this. DO NOT RUIN THIS CLASSIC. It's not necessary. The shark in Jaws and Jaws II was more believable and scary then the CGI sharks in Deep Blue Sea and any other recently made shark movie. This movie CANNOT be topped. it is absolutely spectacular. Spielberg, dude, come on. Don't allow this. But it it seems that necessary than DIRECT it yourself. He has the opportunity to take his vision for this movie to any level. He has the chance to do this he couldn't do back than because of the lack of technology. How could anyone possibly hand that opportunity over to someone else? Thats Spielberg's baby. And honestly Tom Cruise as Brody? WTF! I am both speechless and appalled. Why was that ever even an option? That's as good of an idea as Tracey Morgan for Hooper.
CGI and 3-D are destroying the art and integrity that made film so incredible. They will ruin the Jaws remake like they ruined every other remake. But what do I know I am just a college student who views film as more than a just a moneymaker. I actually still believed that Hollywood valued the quality of films they produce as opposed to the quantity. What a crazy idea today, huh? Guess I'll have a tough time making it in the business