the 3-D shark got extra time
Actually no, the 3-D shark only got 5 seconds of screen time, that was during the climax when the shark crashed through the underwater viewing area, and I'll agree that it looked sh*t.
For the rest of the time the shark is present, it was done through the use of anamatronics and stock footage, which I thought were fairly impressive for the most part. The jaw hangs loosely and extends forward and it's eyes roll back when it attacks (just like sharks do in real life) and it's slow movements during the underwater scenes actually prove effective as it emphasizes it's large size.
The shark in
Jaws: The Revenge looked sh*t in every scene it was present, both based on how it looked and how it was controlled, just a buoyant paper-mache model always appearing to be floating rather than swimming and supporting itself on boats rather than attacking them. But
Jaws: The Revenge's biggest fail is it's ridiculous concept (at least
Jaws 3-D had some good ideas), so I don't think even good special effects could've saved it, because Michael Caine's charisma certainly did not.
reply
share
bastasch8647
8 years ago
The shark in Jaws: The Revenge looked sh*t in every scene it was present, both based on how it looked and how it was controlled, just a buoyant paper-mache model always appearing to be floating rather than swimming
Well, it didn't look like sh*t in every scene, but certainly the 3-D shark did because it didn't look alive and authentically three-dimensional even to original audiences in its first release. It looked like a cardboard cutout that an incompetent witch had cursed with flawed 3-D. 3-D's shark looks like a cartoon, which gives a less realistic look than Revenge's badly-executed but "live-effects" look.
Not that it all matters too much. I gave up on Revenge about five minutes after the action moved to the Bahamas. I doubt that even a wonderfully-executed shark could have saved either film.
reply
share
SisterSuzy101
8 years ago
it didn't look alive and authentically three-dimensional even to original audiences in its first release. It looked like a cardboard cutout that an incompetent witch had cursed with flawed 3-D. 3-D's shark looks like a cartoon, which gives a less realistic look
Are you still referring to the shark crashing through the glass sequence? Because I already said that looked bad.
reply
share
bastasch8647
8 years ago
Sure, I include that, but the 3-D shark never convinced me even once, while the Revenge shark looked okay - a couple of times...
reply
share
McFly_2015
8 years ago
Neither film was good but both had two good attack scenes; the momma sharks grand entrance in J3 wreaking havoc was good as was the attempted trapping scene in which the shark eats Philip Fitz Royce. The ending scene was kind of silly with the shark crashing through glass but the finale was far better than the revenge; it was quite climatic having the shark trap the characters in the control room and that was the only film in which the shark is killed from under water .
Definitely the shawn killing was good in revenge and I enjoyed the sunken ship chase.
I can’t say I ever saw a film with such a great opening scene compared to such an awful closing scene as JTR. Definitely the winter kill and choir scene was very chilling. Quinten Tarantino uses the effect of playing soothing music in horrifying scenes as well. It’s too bad they couldn’t have kept more of the film at Amity although people don’t go into the water during the winter.
reply
share