 No doubt, you have seen the movie Jaws. I mean, who hasn't? It's a classic movie with a concept that scared thousands of people out of the water. But, did you know it was based on a book? You did? Alright, well aren't you just so smart. Peter Benchley wrote the book Jaws and it was published in 1974. Clearly, I don't have to tell you how popular it became. But was the book any good? Well, yes and no. At least, in my opinion. I read Jaws several years ago and have to say it completely captivated me. I finished it in one day. The characters were amazing and realistic. I actually found myself hating Hooper and Sheriff Brody's wife, Ellen. The thought of them in the book disgusted me. Which is an amazing testament to Mr. Benchley's writing style as he was able to evoke real emotion from me. *Note, from here on out there will be spoilers for both the book and the movie. Swim at your own risk!* I would highly recommend this book but suggest you read all the way up to the very end. Right up to when the shark attacks the Orca. Stop right there. Put the book down. And watch the end of the movie. That's where the book, at least for me, falls apart. In the movie, there's the epic struggle with the shark as it destroys the boat and eats Quint, much like the book. However, Hooper was eaten by the shark the day before in the book. It's for the best. He was a dick. Of course, we all know Brody's famous line as he shoots the oxygen tank stuck in Jaw's jaws. (Was the shark named Jaws? I think someone should have named it Jaws. Makes sense to me) "Smile you son of..." KABOOM! Shark dead. Blood, guts, and blubbery debris rain down from the heavens. Cool, right? Well the book....well....it sucks. I just don't like it. Quint's dead, Brody is floating on debris from the Orca. He peers into the water and sees the shark swimming towards him, mouth agape. He readies himself for death but suddenly....the shark dies. Yup. It. Just. Dies. You see, they had thrown several harpoons into the creature before hand and it only now succumbs to its wounds, just in time to not eat the main character. Is it a more realistic ending? Yes. Is it an exciting one? No! To me, it felt like the author originally wrote an ending where Brody was eaten by the shark and continued on its way until it later died in the ocean, like many sharks before it. But then he had a change of heart and let Brody live. Which meant, having the shark die in the most anticlimactic way possible. Of course, the explosion wouldn't have been as impressive in the book but maybe we could have had something in between. You know, Brody jabs it in the eye for a final time with a spear and it dies. Would have been a lot better. For a book with so much built up conflict, it felt like the end puttered out. Ultimately, it was a great book but the ending was better in the movie. What did you think? Did you read Jaws? Did you like the ending? Did you hate it? Let me know your feelings in the comments below! Thanks for reading and remember, keep wandering. Just not alone. 
4 Comments
michael west
3/9/2018 10:17:37 am
I like movies because of the visuals. I know that is a 'duh' sort of statement. Movies are more spectacular. In the movie, The World According to Garp, there was a scene where a plane crashed into a home and the main character insisted to his wife that they buy that home despite all of the repairs it now needed. The odds of that happening again to the same home were astronomical so their children would be safe from one less threat. That ten seconds of film was not in the book. That was the best way for the movie to convey the father's paranoia regarding his children's safety. The two media forms sometimes need different approaches to the same problem. The book, Jaws, was less spectacular with its ending, as you pointed out. I liked both. The book was political. It was more about money and politics than it was about a big fish. I thought the anticlimactic ending was perfect. Like real life politics and other situations, you often win or lose without ever knowing for certain that you did. That ending applied to the movie would have sucked eggs.
Evan Bond
3/9/2018 10:33:05 am
I would agree the ending of the book would have been wildly out of place in the movie. You're right. The book did focus heavily on the politics of the town rather than the suspense of the shark. Whereas the movie did the opposite. I definitely understand the directors choice to change the ending to something a bit more epic and visual. I just wish there was just a little bit more to the ending of the book. I agree the ending seems to fit the tone of the book but I think one small jab by the main protagonist could have been enough to keep it in line with the books overall tone.
michael west
3/10/2018 10:21:11 am
Since we are griping a bit, I have another for you. (Oh btw, good review of Jaws, I like your opinions. And as much as I hate to maybe take a shot at a legendary author, you're right that he could have added just a tiny bit and wrapped it up better.) There might be a spoiler or two if you haven't read The Lord of the Rings yet. I thought that trilogy of movies was perfect, adhering completely to the books until the last few minutes of the final movie. The story is a war epic in fantasy genre. Like reality, it shows hardened veterans going to war alongside innocent youngsters (the hobbits.) The movies and books are the same except for one crucial scene left out of the final movie. After the hobbits become soldiers, leaders honored by the king, they return home to find that their shire has been taken over by Saruman, their people enslaved. They lead the revolt with their newly developed war skills, and it is a poignant moment when they try to stop their people from killing their tormentor. This one scene makes the greatest arguments both for and against war; shows how drastically the participants have changed. It was not in the movie.
Evan Bond
3/11/2018 12:29:05 pm
I agree. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies and the books. I think they really should have added the scene where they saved The Shire. I understand movies need to cut content for time's sake but that last movie was nearly four hours long. Probably could have fit it in somewhere. I was always upset they didn't include Tom Bombadil in the movie but I understood why they changed it. The pacing of the first book is far different from the pacing in the movie. But you're right, the saving of the shire should have been added! Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
ABOUT BONDTo cover up his search history, Evan Bond is a thriller/suspense author. As an outdoor enthusiast and horror lover, Evan Bond enjoys writing stories where the two come together. He lives in Florida with his wife and two sons. |
RSS Feed