Killed stuntman...
Does anyone know the name of the stuntman killed during the making of this film? If so, please post it here...
shareyeh, his name was 'jose marco'
share[deleted]
Does anyone know how much of the attack footage was used in the film? The shark attack in the final cut seems extremely realistic, complete with blood.
shareI was just going to ask the same thing.
It would be in really poor taste if they did but the way the producers wrangled the film away from Samuel Fuller it doesn't sound outside the realm of possibility.
eat more film:
http://steadydietoffilm.typepad.com
It's been almost two years since I've seen this film, but the shark attack continue to haunt me. If that wasn't the real thing, those were some chilling special effects!
share<<Does anyone know how much of the attack footage was used in the film? The shark attack in the final cut seems extremely realistic, complete with blood. >>
I recall reading that when the movie was released, some photos were published in National Geographic, which reported that the actual shark attack footage was used in the movie. A few months later, it was revealed in Skin Diver magazine, that the footage scene in the movie is NOT a real shark attack, that it was faked, and the publicity surrounding the movie (at least in regards to the film featuring an actual shark attack "caught on film") was bogus. But there was never a retraction printed in National Geographic.
Thanks for the details! Do we know for sure that Skin Diver was correct and National Geographic was wrong about using actual attack footage? I would be surprised if they used footage of the actual shark attack in the film, but it does look very realistic, especially for a 1969 movie.
Unfortunately, this film doesn't have much going for it other than that scene, which is horrifying but fascinating.
<<Thanks for the details! Do we know for sure that Skin Diver was correct and National Geographic was wrong about using actual attack footage? I would be surprised if they used footage of the actual shark attack in the film, but it does look very realistic, especially for a 1969 movie. >>
Not sure. I recall this information from a book about "underwater exploration" that was published some years later. Don't ask me for the title, because I found the book at the public library more than 20 years ago. I only remember that it's Shark that they were talking about because they showed a series of photos taken from the film, which I recognized when I finally got to see the movie a couple years later.
My recollection is that the article in Skin Diver included a retraction from the producers, saying that the whole "real shark attack caught on film" thing was a complete hoax.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would continue filming if someone had actually been attacked. One would think that the cameramen would have stopped filming and more likely have attempted to aid the victim, rather than trying to capture in the manner that's seen in the movie.
<<Unfortunately, this film doesn't have much going for it other than that scene, which is horrifying but fascinating. >>
Yeah, it is kind of a dull movie. There's a couple ok scuba scenes, but that's about it.
Thanks for the follow-up. I would also hope that the cameramen would stop filming and aid the victim once the shark attacked, providing they knew what was going on (and the blood should have been a cue, unless there was fake blood used as well). The more I think about it, the "real shark attack caught on film" was probably a hoax used to promote a film that otherwise didn't have much to sell it.
<<The more I think about it, the "real shark attack caught on film" was probably a hoax used to promote a film that otherwise didn't have much to sell it. >>
Most likely this is the case, and it wouldn't have been the only time a movie producer came up with some ridiculous stunt to promote his movies. Back in the 50's, William Castle was famous for gags like allegedly taking a life insurance policy for the entire audience, for the duration of the movie, in case anyone died of fright. He also had one movie where he wired up theatre seats to give mild shocks to the patrons at dramatic moments in the film.
Later on, in the 70's, there was a movie called Snuff, where the producer tacked on some lame ending that had nothing to do what the director had already filmed, and the promoted the picture as being a real life, honest to Goddess snuff film. He even hired people to "picket" the film when it played in NYC. Of course, that last maneuver proved redundant: when word got out, REAL picketers started showing up at theaters where the movie was being made. But the whole thing was a put on, to promote some lame movie that's remembered today pretty much solely for this stunt.
Ah yes, I remember the hype and fury over "Snuff." In fact, I have the poster for that movie in storage, Controversy never hurt a bad film, as anyone suckered into seeing "Showgirls" could attest. The industry is constantly hyping its product by reminding us that films were "banned" in certain countries, just as it capitalizes on tragedies like the deaths of stars.
William Castle was both a master charlatan and showman, and his films are cheesy but undeniably entertaining. I wonder if the Internet has made us more savvy and resistant to shock, but that doesn't stop 'em from trying.
[deleted]
A stuntman was most definitely killed by a shark during production of the film; the original question was did said footage ended up on screen (I seriously doubt it), not if the tragedy actually took place or not.
Fuller's departure from the production was because the producers wished to exploit this and he (quite rightly) objected.