Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaws (film)

Jaws (film)[edit]

Self-nomination-I've been working on this article for about two months now, after I stumbled onto it in this version, and I think it fulfills all the FA criteria. I've added over 20 references and three entire sections completely written by me, as well as heavily editing the rest of the article. It has two peer reviews, one started during its GA Nomination here, and another one before I put it up for FAC here. Thanks to Mike Christie, Geoduck, and several other editors who helped make the article what it is today.Dark Kubrick 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing left to do, IMO, would be to merge the differences with the novel and music sections with the production section, and divide the production section with subheaders- writing (where the Differences section would go), special effects, casting and music. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, but I think John Williams's music is so well-known that it deserves its own section. I have some critical review in there as well, and that would seem out of place in the Production section. I'm not sure differences from the novel would fit in there either. As for subheadings, both Casting and Special Effects are too short to warrant special subheadings.--Dark Kubrick 10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would greatly expand the critical response section, with emphasis on how then-contemporary reviewers reacted to it. This section seems really skimpy for such an important and popular title. The film did receive some positive reviews at the time of its release, but as far as I know the only prominent critic who recognized it as being a great film was Pauline Kael. I would recommend that some quotes from her enthusiastic critique be included. Also, I don't think Vincent Canby was the only notable critic who disliked the film; some other negative responses probably should be included.Hal Raglan 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion. Any ideas on where to find information such as that?--Dark Kubrick 16:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I have an extract from a Kael review printed from Cinemania '05. It says "for a more extended discussion, see Pauline Kael's book When the Lights Go Down. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Kael quote and reference. Unfortunately, that book isn't available on Google Books or any local libraries, so I can't get at it. I've tried searching for negative reviews, but this film is just so good that Canby was the only one who panned it. Any ideas?--Dark Kubrick 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later today, I can look up the Kael review and try to provide some quotes in the article. I just did a quick look at the usual mega-review places -- MRQE, DVD Beaver, Rotten Tomatoes, imdb --and found only two 1975-era reviews (Canby and Ebert). The rest were either blogs or recent online fan/review sites (hundreds of those). It's times like this that you realize how poor of a resource the internet can sometimes be. I remember that either Newsweek or Time gave the film a two paragraph review that, while positive, simply described/dismissed the movie as an "efficient scare machine". Only Kael seemed to really recognize how terrific of a movie it was (in fact, it was her review that convinced me to see the film). And it did receive some pans (I think John Simon hated it), but 31 years later access to such print reviews is limited to those people within distance of large city libraries. I'll do some quick research at home tonight and see what I can find.Hal Raglan 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your efforts. I too find it frustrating that information that far back is unavailable on the web. Google Books and all my local libraries don't have much either. If you're concerned about positive reviews, I wouldn't bother, as I bet I could easily find several critics of that period who recognize it as a great movie. It's the negative POV I'm having trouble representing, so any help in that area would be greatly appreciated.--Dark Kubrick 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found a negative review, from one of the more prominent critics at that time, Charles Champlin (Los Angeles Times):"The first and crucial thing to say about the movie Universal has made from Peter Benchley's bestseller "Jaws" ... is that the PG rating is grievously wrong and misleading. The studio has rightly added its own cautionary notices in the ads, and the fact is that "Jaws" is too gruesome for children, and likely to turn the stomach of the impressionable at any age. While I have no doubt that "Jaws" will make a bloody fortune for Universal and producers Richard Zanuck and David Brown, it is a coarse-grained and exploitive work which depends on excess for its impact. Ashore it is a bore, awkwardly staged and lumpily written." Here's the source: [1] With Ebert's and Kael's positive responses alongside Canby's and Champlin's negative comments, I think that's probably enough to show a sampling of the critical reactions the movie initially received.Hal Raglan 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 1997 copy of Halliwell's has a quote from someone called William S. Pecter: "A mind-numbing repast for sense-sated gluttons. Shark stew for the stupefied." I've no idea who Pecter is, or where he was writing -- but he's probably established enough to be cited by Halliwell's, and they're safe enough to be referenced? The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's excellent. Later tonight I'll incorporate that info into the article. Thanks a lot guys!--Dark Kubrick 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support An impressive article SOADLuver 06:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Dark Kubrick 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It needs a cast section. The Wookieepedian 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that too, but I realized how scant it would be. There are only five real characters in the whole film (you can't count Hendricks or Mrs. Kintner) and two of those five are supporting roles. I don't think it would add much to the article, with such a small and simple cast.--Dark Kubrick 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: The following needs a citation: 'Though a horror classic (voted to have the scariest scenes ever by a Bravo Halloween TV special)'. I think you may mean Bravo's "100 Scariest Movie Moments" [2], but I'm not sure, so I didn't make the edit. Hal Raglan 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's cited. Thanks for the reference.--Dark Kubrick 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice article on a great film. igordebraga ≠ 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much.--Dark Kubrick 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great work. --Myles Long 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Dark Kubrick 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fully referenced, informative article. Nice job.Hal Raglan 13:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and your extremely helpful contributions.--Dark Kubrick 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Extremely explanatory, to sy the least. King fish erswift 17:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support.--Dark Kubrick 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - DK has done an incredible amount of work on this. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and also I appreciate the help you gave during the peer reviews (as well as blocking that stubborn anonymous user :)).--Dark Kubrick 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's superb. Wiki-newbie 18:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Dark Kubrick 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]