only posting to clarify:
I did read it and simply didnt find much to argue, as everything there was just opinion. I joked that I didnt read it to be a jackass, I thought the smiley face after that sentence would have sufficed. I guess not.

WUV

Funny you should say that, since you demanded proof that the character in Signs was superior to the characters of Jaws, and when I provided it, you ignored it and moved on to another line of reasoning.

And you’re constantly concerned with pulling this ‘guilt by association’-trip, saying I argue like creationists and whatnot. I’m not impressed.

It would be so much easier to stop all of this if you’d quit twisting my argument into what you’ve been saying. I said the mayor character is a plot device that had to be reworked into a sensible realistic character and you have now stretched it into me “admitting” it covers all of them. Strawman yet again.

“It’s ridiculous to attack Jurassic Park for its characters”…”I feel the same way about Jaws”

How am I supposed to believe that when you turned off Jaws over a minor character?

I’m stopping. You’re pulling JT tactics at this point.

Yes I would use that same line of reasoning, IF I HAD TO HEAR PEOPLE CONSTANTLY PRAISING JURASSIC PARK FOR ITS CHARACTERS. That’s the main difference, that for some reason, people think one has way better characters than the other, and for me they’re on the same level. It’s ridiculous to attack Jurassic Park for its characters, and it’s equally ridiculous to praise it for them. I feel the same way about Jaws.

Not all movies are about characters. Not all movies try to be. It’s not an admittance of failure to say the characters in Jaws are shallow.

I think the thread was derailed a long time ago.

when writing Jaws, did Benchley have to think of why the mayor wouldnt shut down the beach after realizing it was a hole in the story? probably, he may have had to fill in the spaces rather than start from scratch and move forward – however that doesnt negate the realism of the mayors decisionmaking. You can take any character created for the sake of plot and ground their actions in reality, and thats exactly what happened in Jaws.

So whats next then, using this same line of attack against Nedry in Jurassic Park for the same reasons? I can see it
“I just dont buy that someone would allow all these people to die so he could make some money” and then shut off the movie? Again, its clearly a sake of Chrichton having his concept, having to fill in the blanks with a greedy fatass throwing everyone to their doom so he can be rich. All you can do is take that would-be plot device and give him enough character that you can buy him in the context of the film.

Shawshanks character had personal interests only, The mayor in Jaws has his political interests as well as the short term interests of the people in mind. He made a realistic political decision the types of which happen every day, whereas in Shawshank its up to the viewer whether or not they can buy this particular characters depths of greed.

“I really don’t want to get into why global warming isn’t comparable to a shark attack”

Neither do I, but again – thats because thats not what I said – its about how people will overlook long term, even short term safety, for the sake of the economic interests of an area/nation.

Thread derailed.