Richard Dreyfuss: 'Jaws' should be touched up with CGI and re-released

AndreGX · Oct 3, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
I love Dreyfus but in this case he comes off as a douche because he's advocating for something that isn't his place to request.

To be fair, it was in response to an idea floated by Deadline.

"I think they should do it, it would be huge and it would open up the film to younger people," Dreyfuss said when Deadline floated the idea.

It's the most passive form of advocacy possible, and I'd rather him give his true opinion rather than lying or ignoring it simply because it's "not his place" (and why isn't it? We all suggest tweaks to media we had even less say in)

digitalrelic · Oct 3, 2018

NealMcCauley said:
Jurassic Park 3d had some tinkering done too.

This is mostly color grading, noise reduction, and some other minor things. Pretty standard stuff.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Oct 3, 2018

Sankt Ra said:
Why would it even bother you if the original was still available and untouched ? Who would force you to watch it?

Because going back and fucking around with the director's work without their express consent is problematic.

It's the equivalent of walking into a museum, strolling up to a Picasso, and adding your own touch ups.

It also marginalizes the work of those who made and operated the shark, which was no small feat back when the movie was filmed.

Surfinn · Oct 3, 2018

Sneak peek of touch up:

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Oct 3, 2018

AndreGX said:
To be fair, it was in response to an idea floated by Deadline.

Fair enough and to be clear I'm not mad at Richard. I disagree and I'm actually surprised that somebody with his storied history in this medium would be okay with the idea but it doesn't make me think any less of him.

Deleted member 10612 · Oct 3, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
Because going back and fucking around with the director's work without their express consent is problematic.

It's the equivalent of walking into a museum, strolling up to a Picasso, and adding your own touch ups.

It also marginalizes the work of those who made and operated the shark, which was no small feat back when the movie was filmed.

No it's not. It's like making a new painting that exists next to the original. Something that's perfectly fine and is being done all around the world for centuries.

People are free to support fish operators while watching the original.

MisterAnderson · Oct 3, 2018

Doesn't need it but I'd be curious to see what it would look like.

Rad Bandolar · Oct 3, 2018

The Albatross said:
No, Richard.
Agreed, Hooper, Richard Dreyfuss' character should be played by Chris Pratt.

Quint's should be played by Johnny Depp, playing his Pirates' character.

The shark should be played by Idris Elba

Brody should be played by Jennifer Lawrence

Brody's wife should be played by Richard Dreyfuss, a throw back to the original. Brody's children should be played by the kids from Stranger Things.

Also there should be a narrator and Brody should be able to stop time to explain the different scenarios to the audience. See, when Johnny Depp is on the boat explaining how he was in this WWII naval disaster where sharks ate the crew alive, Brody -- Jennifer Lawrence -- should go "TIME OUT," stand up from the frame in the middle of Depp getting really serious, and explain the history of The Indianapolis to the audience. Better yet, change Quint's monologue from being about the Indianapolis to being on one of the Flights that crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11, but Johnny Depp was the only survivor, and the reason he;s so scared of sharks is because he was reading JAWS, the novel.

Jeff Goldblum will play the Mayor and Nic Cage should play the shark. Idris Elba is the one who slaps Brody, but instead of actually slapping Broday, he gives an impassioned Speech on the Beach and then gives a long, hard glare at Brody before silently moving on. He then shows up in an after credits scene just as Brody and Hooper paddle their way onto the beach.

When they blow up the shark, it explodes into confetti and glitter as a gigantic, translucent head of Rip Taylor appears in the sky and silently laughs.

The Real Abed · Oct 3, 2018

Only if they use that CGI to replace the harpoon with a walkie talkie.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Oct 3, 2018

Sankt Ra said:
No it's not. It's like making a new painting that exists next to the original. Something that's perfectly fine and is being done all around the world for centuries.

People are free to support fish operators while watching the original.

Few would be okay with some other artist coming in and altering a pre-existing masterwork even if that alteration was done to a replica and the original was left entirely alone.

That's not how art works. There is supposed to be respect for the artist and their work product which supersedes cheap, cynical cash grabs.

Going in and altering a director's work without their consent is grotesquely disrespectful, which is why few studios have even entertained the notion and why Ted Turner took massive flack for colorizing classic films decades back.

Also, I'm not sure who you think is altering masterpieces 'around the world for centuries' because that's not happening.

Altering JAWS in this manner isn't making a new film; it's using the original and making unapproved modifications.

One Eyed Willy · Oct 3, 2018

Heromanz said:
The shark looks like shit so do it

The shark actually looks more terrifying in the movie than a real white shark.

Aurongel · Oct 3, 2018

If I am remebering correctly, the 4K re-release of Jurassic Park used additional CG to hide safety cables and other effects errors. Something like that for Jaws wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Re-releasing films and using CG to hide minute production errors while preserving the majority of the original effects is really a win-win situation.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Oct 3, 2018

Aurongel said:
If I am remebering correctly, the 4K re-release of Jurassic Park used additional CG to hide safety cables and other effects errors. Something like that for Jaws wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Re-releasing films and using CG to hide minute production errors while preserving the majority of the original effects is really a win-win situation.

There's a difference between hiding minor technical issues and flatly redoing effects shots.

Also, there are plenty of film purists who would argue that movies shouldn't be tampered with at all in regards to making those types of minor adjustments. I'm personally okay with it as long as those changes are sanctioned by the director.

For example, the Final Cut of Blade Runner.

Deleted member 2317 · Oct 3, 2018

Ridiculous, laughable, and misguided.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Oct 3, 2018

One Eyed Willy said:
The shark actually looks more terrifying in the movie than a real white shark.

That's a fantastic and oft-ignored point: the mechanical shark looks more like a monster, which I prefer and which is more fitting for the overall thematic of this film.

WhiteRabbitEXE · Oct 3, 2018

Aurongel said:
If I am remebering correctly, the 4K re-release of Jurassic Park used additional CG to hide safety cables and other effects errors. Something like that for Jaws wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Re-releasing films and using CG to hide minute production errors while preserving the majority of the original effects is really a win-win situation.

That was JP 3D, not the 4K master. It was due to the 4K effect.

Whitemex · Oct 3, 2018

NealMcCauley said:
I say we let him try!

Thank you. Came to post this

Zvonimir Boban · Oct 3, 2018

It's still the best film ever made so I don't see why you'd need to add a CG shark to it.

Deleted member 46414 · Oct 3, 2018

Jerm411 said:
Abso fucking lutely not....

Shocked it hasn't been re-made yet....waiting for that awful day to come to fruition.

The day my favorite movie of all time is remade is the day I stop watching new movies forever...and I'm really not joking.

Aurongel · Oct 3, 2018

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric said:
There's a difference between hiding minor technical issues and flatly redoing effects shots.

Also, there are plenty of film purists who would argue that movies shouldn't be tampered with at all in regards to making those types of minor adjustments. I'm personally okay with it as long as those changes are sanctioned by the director.

For example, the Final Cut of Blade Runner.

I see that logic, I actually had Blade Runner the Final Cut in mind when I posted that comment. The color correction in that version felt appropriate to me and never took me out of the experience of watching a film of that era.

WhiteRabbitEXE said:
That was JP 3D, not the 4K master. It was due to the 4K effect.

Wait, the CG touch ups weren't applied to the 4K remaster only the 3D theatrical version? I thought both runs of JP were produced around the same time.

Deleted member 2595 · Oct 3, 2018

Teh Hamburglar said:
Why cant movies exist as products of their time? Should we go add some coloring and detail to caveman drawings?

I think having both is kinda cool. It's only really a problem if you try to scrub the original from circulation (read: existence). *eyes George Lucas*

supernormal · Oct 3, 2018

The funny thing about this is that if they did do it, the new version would age worse than the original and you'd have to make a new new version in 10 years.

Deleted member 2317 · Oct 3, 2018

supernormal said:
The funny thing about this is that if they did do it, the new version would age worse than the original and you'd have to make a new new version in 10 years.

Truly a race to the bottom in terms of quality.

Jerm411 · Oct 3, 2018

mickeyphree said:
The day my favorite movie of all time is remade is the day I stop watching new movies forever...and I'm really not joking.

I'm there with ya....

Extra Sauce · Oct 3, 2018

That's why he's an actor and not a director.

Tbh though he's probably just thirsty for more of those sweet, sweet residuals.

Extra Sauce · Oct 3, 2018

mickeyphree said:
The day my favorite movie of all time is remade is the day I stop watching new movies forever...and I'm really not joking.

From my experience people who express that sort of silly hyperbole only watch blockbusters or studio movies. Every year there are dozens upon dozens of great indie/arthouse/foreign films being released. The medium is doing great artistically speaking.

BrickArts295 · Oct 3, 2018

The shark barely makes an appearance so whats the point.

ItRhymesWithDoom · Oct 3, 2018

I can definitely appreciate the notion of brushing up the more obvious 'fake shark' parts, especially considering animal CGI has gotten really good (it's people it has difficulty with, because humans can tell humans apart, but not really other species).
In terms of 'should', I think it's more a 'could' though. I'm guessing it was meant as a 'could' anyway, since he is talking about appeal to younger viewers after all. If people show up for The Meg or The Shallows, or 42 Meters Down, then there's definitely room for such a re-release.
It's not a bad idea, but in general revisiting older movies... something gets lost in doing so. it's hard to tell 'what', but something akin to an historical position suffers. At the same time, every BR release you've seen has already been touched up, even if under the pretense of 'new scans', so there is no real solid position against it.

Deleted member 32822 · Oct 3, 2018

I rewatched Jaws the other day and the shark looks so incredibly fake now. It could use some TLC.

More_Badass · Oct 3, 2018

Fury451 said:
I think this is a dumb idea but if they just overlaid the shark effects with some CG it wouldn't really make that much of a difference anyway considering how little you see of it.

The shark basically being the Michael Myers of sharks, a very unshark-like hulking beast, is part of what makes it effective. Overlaying or replacing it with CG adds nothing and would just dilute the effect of the creature

tiddles · Oct 3, 2018

The shark looks fine but it's only really in the movie for a couple of scenes, seems like a missed opportunity... they could add it back in digitally, maybe during a meal scene or something you could see the fin go past the window a few times, or just out on the water have it do some backflips to show off.

WhiteRabbitEXE · Oct 3, 2018

I'm definitely not in favor of it, but if it were to ever happen I would hope they just "airbrush" the cheeks.

J_Viper · Oct 3, 2018

Jerm411 said:
Abso fucking lutely not....

Shocked it hasn't been re-made yet....waiting for that awful day to come to fruition.

I'd be first in line for Zack Snyder's Jaws

MrMephistoX · Oct 3, 2018

I used to be a fan of CGI touchups as long as they don't alter the story (Han shooting first aside) but over time as technology improves the GCI starts to look more dated than timeless practical effects. 1997 level CGI looks like shit now.

iliketopaint_93 · Oct 3, 2018

I agree 100%. It's actually kinda distracting how bruce never bares its gums like a real shark would when biting. Fix that, and add a few touch-ups and it would hold up amazingly well (fuck a remake).

MrMephistoX said:
I used to be a fan of CGI touchups as long as they don't alter the story (Han shooting first aside) but over time as technology improves the GCI starts to look more dated than timeless practical effects. 1997 level CGI looks like shit now.

A lot of effects aren't timeless though like the ones in The Thing and Alien are, and CGI has reached a point where photorealism is more or less achievable. Now is as good a time as any to start editing in CGI fx in older movies imo.

Real Hero · Oct 3, 2018

fuck off

Form & Function · Oct 3, 2018

Real Hero said:
fuck off

Quoted for truth.

More_Badass · Oct 3, 2018

iliketopaint_93 said:
A lot of effects aren't timeless though like the ones in The Thing and Alien are, and CGI has reached a point where photorealism is more or less achievable. Now is as good a time as any to start editing in CGI fx in older movies imo.

To what end? How exactly would stuff like that benefit a movie? Why would the CGI be better than the original effects; simply looking more realistic doesn't make something inherently better for a movie

Grisby · Oct 3, 2018

Concerning the interview, listen guys he's just tired and he wants to go bed. He had a little drink about an hour ago and it went straight to his head.

Keasar · Oct 3, 2018

iliketopaint_93 · Oct 3, 2018

More_Badass said:
To what end? How exactly would stuff like that benefit a movie? Why would the CGI be better than the original effects; simply looking more realistic doesn't make something inherently better for a movie

Well if the practical effects in a film aren't as convincing as they could be, I feel like it works against the movie more than if those fx are touched up to look more convincing. This is a different school of thought than the George Lucas "add a shitton of CGI to change things, even if unnecessary" approach. Don't see why the shark in Jaws shouldn't be anatomically sound as a shark to better realize the illusion of the characters being attacked by a shark. That's not to say that the original fx shouldn't be preserved, but if Bruce looks less like an anamatronic the story would hold up better imo.

a916 · Oct 3, 2018

Teh Hamburglar said:
Why cant movies exist as products of their time? Should we go add some coloring and detail to caveman drawings?

Why can't both exist? ...

More_Badass · Oct 3, 2018

iliketopaint_93 said:
Well if the practical effects in a film aren't as convincing as they could be, I feel like it works against the movie more than if those fx are touched up to look more convincing. This is a different school of thought than the George Lucas "add a shitton of CGI to change things, even if unnecessary" approach. Don't see why the shark in Jaws shouldn't be anatomically sound as a shark to better realize the illusion of the characters being attacked by a shark. That's not to say that the original fx shouldn't be preserved, but if Bruce looks less like an anamatronic the story would hold up better imo.

But Bruce not looking or acting like a shark is part of the tapestry that makes Jaws effective. It's not a realistic shark, it's the brute slasher villain of sharks with dead eyes and massive chomping jaws. The un-realism is akin to how The Shape just seems weird and unsettling with his robotic movements and blank face. It's not a shark, but a monster from the deep, one of those over-the-top "shark chomping a boat" pictures that scares the wife in the movie brought to life rather than a realistic shark

Darknight · Oct 3, 2018

Sankt Ra said:
No it's not. It's like making a new painting that exists next to the original. Something that's perfectly fine and is being done all around the world for centuries.

People are free to support fish operators while watching the original.

But what happens if the new version is replaced as the default version that's made available? That's problematic.

ODDI · Oct 3, 2018

Absolutely agree, while you're at let's re-cast Channing Tatum as the lead role, give the sharks laser beam on their foreheads and have a musical number that ends with the sharks dabbing.

Deleted member 13798 · Oct 3, 2018

More_Badass said:
The shark basically being the Michael Myers of sharks, a very unshark-like hulking beast, is part of what makes it effective. Overlaying or replacing it with CG adds nothing and would just dilute the effect of the creature

I completely agree, I'm just saying if they did it wouldn't be as bad as it would be in other cases. Like what Spielberg did to ET. So completely unnecessary though.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Oct 3, 2018

iliketopaint_93 said:
A lot of effects aren't timeless though like the ones in The Thing and Alien are, and CGI has reached a point where photorealism is more or less achievable. Now is as good a time as any to start editing in CGI fx in older movies imo.

Unless these 'fixes' are sanctioned and overseen by the respective directors this is flatly fucking around with cinematic history and leaving the composition of a scene to the whims of an SFX programmer/team.

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric · Oct 3, 2018

FYI, every single scene in a film is a complicated and nuanced production that often requires dozens (or more) people to achieve the finished product on screen.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, more people should edify themselves as to what it takes to make a film and the complications therein before assuming - erroneously - that adding these sorts of modifications are benign.

That's the same specious logic employed back when video stores in Utah like CleanFlix were 'editing' films and believed there was nothing wrong in doing so.

Fudgepuppy · Oct 3, 2018

There's only one thing in the movie they could touch up, and it's the times you can see through the gills of the shark. There's one scene from the side when it comes up on the boat, where you see through the shark. That could just be filled in black.

Shadybiz · Oct 3, 2018

Nope.

Jaws is one of my absolute favorites. The Blu-ray release was perfect, and I would agree that THAT was needed.

CGI is not needed here. Don't fuck with perfection.

Richard Dreyfuss: 'Jaws' should be touched up with CGI and re-released

GameXplain

Weight Loss Champion 2018: Biggest Change

user requested ban

user requested ban

User requested account closure

user requested ban

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

user requested ban

User-requested account closure

user requested ban

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Account closed at user request

User-requested account closure

GOTY Tracking Thread Master

Use of alt account

Use of alt account

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"

user requested ban

user requested ban