Was the success of JAWS due to its initial failure?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Failure
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the impact of the mechanical shark's failure during the production of the movie JAWS and whether this failure contributed to the film's eventual success. Participants explore the implications of this failure on the film's narrative and box office performance, as well as broader themes of success arising from unexpected circumstances.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of Spielberg's estimate of a $185 million increase in box office sales due to the shark's failure, suggesting it seems overly precise for an estimate.
  • Others argue that the success of the film may stem from the unexpected or unintentional aspects of its production rather than a direct correlation to the shark's failure.
  • A participant mentions that fear of unseen threats can enhance the effectiveness of horror films, implying that the absence of the shark may have contributed to the film's suspense.
  • Some participants reference other examples of success arising from failure, such as the accidental discovery of cosmic background radiation and the invention of Post-it notes, to illustrate the broader concept of unintended positive outcomes.
  • A later reply reflects on personal experiences related to the film's release, noting a significant impact on beach attendance and surfing culture during that summer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between the shark's failure and the film's success. While some acknowledge the potential for unexpected outcomes to lead to success, others remain skeptical about the specific claims made regarding box office figures and the nature of success from failure.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the lack of clarity regarding how Spielberg arrived at his financial estimate, suggesting that it may be based on industry standards or other films, but this remains speculative.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
I was listening to Steven Spielberg talk about the making of the movie JAWS. When the mechanical shark was first tested, it operated brilliantly for the first few seconds, but then it failed and sank to the bottom of the ocean. This put the shark out of commission for several weeks. At this point Spielberg couldn’t afford to wait and he was forced to film scenes in which the presence of the shark was implied, but the shark was never actually seen. This then became his motif for the entire movie and he estimates that it probably added $185 million to box office sales. Looking back, he now realizes that had the shark worked properly that first day, the movie wouldn’t have been nearly as effective.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How on Earth did Spielberg estimate that a $185m sales increase occurred due to a broken shark?
 
57% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

(First learned here on PF some years ago)
 
Every time you prove something by contradiction, it's a success due to a failure, but it isn't worth a penny. :rolleyes:
 
brewnog said:
How on Earth did Spielberg estimate that a $185m sales increase occurred due to a broken shark?

Chi Meson said:
57% of all statistics are made up on the spot

I was going to say that! :smile:
 
Lordy lordy, it was a guess. You guys need to lighten up.

As one of the most if not the most successful director in history, he thinks this is why the movie was such a hit.

Talk about back-seat drivers!
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't have questioned it if he'd said $200m, but $185m seems terribly precise for an estimate.
 
brewnog said:
I wouldn't have questioned it if he'd said $200m, but $185m seems terribly precise for an estimate.

Well, given that no one here knows how he arrived at that number, isn't it a little premature to say that it came from nowhere? Clearly it was a guess, but perhaps it was a guess based on specific information.

It seems to me that we have people who know nothing about this passing judgement. I can go the local bar and get that kind of input.
 
brewnog said:
I wouldn't have questioned it if he'd said $200m, but $185m seems terribly precise for an estimate.

For the same reason, I didn't say "60 % of all statistics..."

And I, personally, never drive in the back seat! I'll clamber right over and wrest the steering wheel from their arthritic fingers when I feel like it!

And at the time I decide to lighten up, I shall endeavor to drill holes in my femur.

:snarky: :supercilious: :-p

[return to OP]
It has been shown that people are far more scared of things they don't see.
 
  • #10
It may have been an estimate based on box office sales for other movies that show the monster.

I wouldn't really call it success from failure, but more success from the unexpected or unintentional.
 
  • #11
Success from failure would be post it notes and peanut brittle.
 
  • #12
Success from failure? Let's not forget the accidental Nobel Prize. Yes, two engineers won the Nobel by accident. Actually by failing.

The cosmic background radiation that verified the Big Bang Theory was discovered by three Bell Lab engineers trying to find the source of the noise in their antenna. They couldn't find the source because of the background radiation that is present in all directions. In 1978 the two who were still alive shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery. Talk about success from failure.
 
  • #13
Moonbear said:
It may have been an estimate based on box office sales for other movies that show the monster.

I wouldn't really call it success from failure, but more success from the unexpected or unintentional.

He had envisioned the movie entirely differently until his main character - the shark - failed, so I guess one could take a literal view of things. But as for your first comment, that was my thought as well: He may have been referencing some particular industry standard. At any rate, I guess I find it a bit annoying when threads get derailed due to minor objections. Okay, maybe he has no way to be so specific, or maybe he does, but the point was that he doesn't believe that the movie would have been so tremendously successful if the shark had worked properly that first day.

I was heavily into surfing and bodysurfing back then and that was the most amazing summer. The movie came out in June - I think it was June 21st for some reason...could I really remember that??. Afterwards, for something on the order of a month, the S Cal beaches were virtually empty. People did slowly return, but even then the number of people in the water was clearly significantly reduced all summer. It made the surfing great because you didn't have to worry about all of the moving targets that were normally present. One thing that didn't help matters was a Great White a little over twenty feet long that was caught about ten miles offshore... I think later that summer... I remember seeing it at Sea World in San Diego. It was nearly as large as the shark in the movie was supposed to be. And I must admit, one day that summer I had a rather large fish hit my leg when I was treading water out beyond the breaks, and I about jumped out of my shorts! :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Evo said:
Success from failure would be post it notes and peanut brittle.

Splain?
 
  • #15
They had this great idea that if you put used paper in the washing machine, it would come out clean to be used again, but it just shrunk instead. That's how the post-it was invented
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
...jumped out of my shorts! :biggrin:
Then everyone on the beach ran screaming. :smile:

I read that coconuts were used in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail to make horse sounds because a handlers strike did not allow the use of live horses. Made for several clever gags in that movie.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K