Jaws 30th Anniversary Edition in June (1 Viewer)

[Tom Brennan]

I've never read one complaint from anyone who bought 1941 on LD for $125 only to have the DVD come out with everything on it for just $35 (in 1999). The is true for the $100 Goldfinger box set that MGM issued only to put the same thing on DVD a few years later, again, much cheaper than the LD. I know I've never complained and I have both of those box sets and more.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I certainly hope that's not their reasoning as it's quite silly. Laserdisc was always a niche format and many people, myself included, never had a player.

 

[Geoff_D]

I've got the Jaws laserdisc boxset, and I won't think twice about getting the new DVD even if it has the complete documentary. I don't say "Dammit! I've been screwed again!" when I pick up a DVD clone of an extant LD set, simply because of the convenience, cheap price point and largely superior A/V quality of a DVD version. I'm still waiting for the right DVD edition of this particular film though, as I've already bought and sold the dolby digital DVD of Jaws, with the dts disc now sitting on ebay in anticipation of the new release.

As for the content of the new DVD, I expect it to have a mix of the older material and brand-new retrospectives from cast & crew, kinda like what Universal did with the ET DVD. And just like ET, I doubt the original LD documentary for Jaws will be reproduced in it's entirity for a DVD edition. Actually, the ET DVD didn't even get the existing LD documentary in any form, did it? I seem to remember that we got new interviews cut around Laurent Bouzereau's original on-set footage instead. Maybe Jaws is in for the same treatment this time around?

But it'd be nice if Universal could be bothered to rescan any potential stills from original materials, instead of taking them straight off of the damn laserdisc!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Has this ever occurred to me? No, and I'd bet it never occurred to anyone at Universal either. (Or Warner, the folks who own Amadeus.) As noted by Tom, plenty of full ports of expensive LDs have come out over the years - Apollo 13, 1941, etc. - and I seriously doubt any studios worry about offending fans. They don't care who they piss off via double-dipping - do you really think they'll worry about the relatively few purchasers of the old LDs?

 

[Ernest Rister]

[/i]As noted by Tom, plenty of full ports of expensive LDs have come out over the years...[/i]

Yeah, but I know for a fact from personal correspondence how certain filmmakers are queasy about listing a title as a "special edition" and charging through the nose for it, only to turn around a few years later and re-release the same material at diminished cost. True, it is a fact of life these days, but don't think for a second that people don't exist out there who actually mean it when they authorize a "limited collector's edition".

As for Spielberg, you guys are probably right, however Spielberg and Lucas and Disney are very shrewd when it comes to their home video re-releases, they make sure every release gives their fanbase a new reason to buy. Conversely, not unlike Anchor Bay, they also make sure each release is unique enough to warrant special purchasing status among their rabid fan base.

Just like the recent 2-disc re-release of Saving Private Ryan, I won't be surprised at all if the new Jaws DVD features an abundance of completely *new* material and *new* interviews, with mere excerpts from the old doc.

Meanwhile, the old LD doc will escalate in value, and that's the way it goes.

 

[BrettGallman]

Just to clarify a few things, my parents weren't completely crazy in letting me view Jaws at such a young age. If anything, they instilled in me a very clear understanding between reality and fiction, so nothing ever truly scared me.

So, anyway, back on topic (sort of). I actually lament the fact that I missed out on the whole LD phase of home video, even though it seemed like an expensive hobby. Some of these limited edition sets sound awesome just for their sheer collectibility alone. I seriously contemplated getting an LD player just to get the original Star Wars Trilogy in the best format possible, but I'm hoping they get released as an extra feature in some mega collection on DVD or HD-DVD/Blue-Ray some day.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

I'd like to see what you consider being a "great" movie that isn't "trash." I'm with Ernest all the way.

 

[Mark-W]

Ernest,

I think most of us understand that LD was a niche market and the simple fact that the number of units produced meant that there was going to be a higher price point per unit.

As technology in general gets better, the technology gets cheaper. It is cheaper to make a DVD than it is to make an LD, and a three disk DVD set can contain all of the data stored on a 6 disc LD set and still have improved picture and sound.

Cheaper to make, and more units produced because of DVD market = lower price for product.

People understand this when they buy a computer. They know that in a few months, and better, faster, more momory unit is going to come out that costs the same or less than the one they are walking out of the store with.

How many people will be upset when all the stuff on a multi-disc DVD set is available in HD-DVD, on fewer discs, and cost the same?

Very few, I would imagine.

 

[Ernest Rister]

And yet I know of at least one film director who is very conscious of not "taking fans for a ride" with collector sets, stretching back to the LD era. I'm not saying who. She feels that a collector's set should be exactly that. Maybe because she isn't a "major" player, she is more conscious of and accessible to her fan base.

As I said previously, Lucas and Spielberg are very shrewd with their re-issues, they always create new reasons to get fans to buy the same product. You guys are probably right in regards to JAWS and other titles, but I'm just saying -- there are people out there who mean it when they make a "collector's set", and when new media is made available, they stick to their guns, and make NEW sets, not ports of their old material.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The Passion of Joan of Arc
Wild Strawberries
L'Avventura
Ballad of a Soldier
Vertigo
Paths of Glory
Make Way for Tomorrow
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
Andrei Rublev
Spirit of the Beehive
The Magnificent Ambersons
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser
The Godfather, Part II
Ikiru
Picnic at Hanging Rock

You can agree with Ernest all you like, Mike, I couldn't care less. The fact is that the story in Jaws doesn't penetrate the Mysteries of Life - it is just a comic book yarn. What makes Jaws a special piece of filmmaking is its technical bravura: the rarely bettered editing by the Mothercutter; the fluid camera movement, etc. It also helps that actors like Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw were cast in those roles of course, but each of them has done better work - as has Spielberg. It was a bold gamble letting such an upstart film such a crazy film as this. The middle section of the film is a little flabby (just like Close Encounters) and the score is really what drives the film, but, as I say, I love the film, but I do scratch my head when people proclaim that it is their favourite film. It is a magical film in its own way, but there were better films released in 1975 and there are better films in general. Leaving Star Wars aside, Jaws is the ultimate 'Popular' American film of all time. But American Cinema holds brighter diamonds.

 

[AlexCosmo]

me like Jaws. It exciting. (Also, it not need new bass-heavy splash noises).

 

[Steve Christou]

I still tink they should haf CGI'd the shark und addid more dinosor sounds.

 

[george kaplan]

Well if your definition of a 'trash' movie is any film that doesn't "penetrate the Mysteries of Life", then I think every film ever made is a trash film, cause I've never seen a film that did that. And that waste of celluloid Andrei Rublev certainly does the opposite, it just tries to confound the viewer with meaningless imagery, though not as badly as he does with the Mirror. Yech.

If Jaws is trash compared to Andrei Rublev, then give me an entire city dump of films anyday.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Personally I feel Jaws is that rare breed of popcorn film that really transcends the normal limitations of its genre (in this case, the monster movie) and becomes legitimately great art. Spielberg draws upon the cinematic realism of early 70s American filmmaking (including such Altmanian elements as unpretty non-actors, simultaneous cross-conversations on the soundtrack, etc.) and fuses it with his innate visual mastery and crowd-pleasing instincts. The result is a one-of-a-kind film. And that amazing score helps too.

Spielberg's best film? No, I reserve that for Close Encounters. But if one can free one's self of critical prejudice against certain kinds of genre stories, Jaws emerges as an eminently worthy work of art that can stand proudly alongside 70s masterpieces from Coppola, Altman, Bogdanovich, Scorsese, et al. At least that's what I think.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

George, what's your problem? I have stated, time and again, that I love Jaws. I just see the film in a different light from you. I love it for different reasons. You seem really touchy about me criticizing Jaws. Why? What's the big deal? Jaws is a very simple, pretty illogical, monster movie that happened to be made by consumate professionals and was released at just the right time (summer) for it to be successul. But God knows that Spielberg has done better (Empire of the Sun) and unless you are six-years-old, it doesn't do what it should anymore: ie, scare the shit out of you. I appreciate Jaws for its editing, scoring and Quint's Indianapolis soliloquy. But as a piece of storytelling, it is easily defeated.

That is the most crass and ignorant statement I have ever read at HTF. You obviously understand nothing about Tarkovsky's philosophy of filmmaking and the depth that his films contain. Andrei Rublev is easily one of the most profoundly beautiful and engaging films I have ever seen. No American filmmaker of the sound-era can hold a candle to his genius and compassion.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Jefferson, I wish that I had the brevity and erudition that you posess! Very well put. Jaws is Art, in its own special way. Like all of Spielberg's best films, there is a very down-home poetry lurking in the beautiful, familiar images. Spielberg's films are America herself.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Very true. No director, ever, has had a better grasp of how to tell stories visually, IMO. One image leads effortlessly to the next, rarely drawing attention to itself but leaving you unable to look away from the screen. I particularly love the widescreen compositions in Jaws, particularly when the three principals - Scheider, Shaw, and Dreyfus - are framed together (which they often are).

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Don't get me wrong; I love CUCKOO'S NEST too -- but generally speaking -- you don't really think there's any merit or credibility to which film wins Best Picture/Actor/Actress, etc., every year at the Oscars do you?

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The main drive of Jaws was to shock and scare audiences - just like Psycho fifteen years previously. It doesn't do that to me anymore. Which begs the interesting question: why do I watch it at least once a year and always watch at least ten minutes when it pops up on TV in pan and scan? This is what proves that Spielberg and all the other geniuses who worked on the film were investing more in the film than perhaps it deserved (maybe that's the wrong word). I still watch it because, as I said, it is a "lesson in filmmaking" and few 'monster movies' are.

But Jaws is up there with, among others, Gance's Napoléon, Welles' Citizen Kane, Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, Ophuls' Lola Montès, Melville's, Le Samouraï and the first two parts of The Godfather. Although those films have a psychological depth to their narratives that is missing in the potboiler that is Jaws.

No, none at all: I was trying to illustrate that there were, and are, films that are stronger overall than Jaws. Also, I feel that the boat-trip in Cuckoo's Nest tells you more about how it feel to be at sea than Jaws does! It's a wonderful scene. But in Cuckoo's Nest, you couldn't get a more different film.

 

[TravisR]

"The main drive of Jaws was to shock and scare audiences - just like Psycho fifteen years previously. It doesn't do that to me anymore."

I understand that you're speaking for yourself but I will say that when I saw Jaws at a theater last summer and it scared the HELL out of the audience. I knew all the scares so it had no effect (at least scare-wise) on me but it still scares the audience that doesn't know the movie forward and back