I saw this movie when it was originally released in theatres, I was in high school at the time and since it came out a year after Jaws the concensus among everyone I knew was that it was a cheesy attempt to cash in on the success of Jaws only with a bear this time. They even had Susan Blacklinie (sp) in the thing!
Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie and thought it was well done but I still think they were probably hoping to ride the coat tails of Jaws...
There were and still are today A LOT of "Jaws" "rip-offs". And there's nothing wrong with that. It was a great movie. If you didn't have "rip-offs", you wouldn't have genres, and if you didn't have genres every movie you watch would be a total crapshoot because you wouldn't be able to narrow down what kind of movies you like. A good movie is a good movie regardless of whether it's a "rip-off", and a bad movies isn't any better just because it's supposedly original (if ANYTHING can really be said to be totally original).
I'd rather watch the worst "Jaws" "rip-offs" than some of the crap I've seen lately, like "I Know Who Killed Me". Five minutes into that thing and I was seriously hoping that Lindsay Lohan would get eaten by a bear or something (or at least seriously mauled. . . )There's A LOT worse things for a movie to be than a "Jaws" "rip-off".
I like it on the new documentary on the Shriek Show DVD when one of the writers is talking about how it's not a total rip-off of Jaws, and it cuyts immediately to Andrew Prine saying "it's a total Jaws rip-off."
I watched this for the first time on TCM a couple of nights ago and that's the first thing that I noticed. Anyway, I enjoyed it for what it was, cheesy ripoff and all.
According to Wiki and urban myths. She's definitely not in the film. She was in a film called Grizzly and the Treasure, but it's not the same film. There's not a victim in the film that remotely resembles her except maybe Ranger Gail (the chick that gets attacked under the waterfall), played by Victoria Johnson.
Of course. But it's a dangerous animal stalking man. In the case of both Jaws and Grizzly, abnormally large animals to boot. And both have the economic factor of staying open was imperative to stay afloat. And both have a LEO along quirky guy and an expert tagging along. Jaws made huge profits so many tried cashing in on the craze.
Just watched it again today and it is such a complete Jaws rip off and entertaining also. It comes complete with Brody, Hooper, Quint, Mayor Vaughn and the Kitner kid. Watch for Quints speech as well.
Jaws was 1975, the year just before. Would they really have the time to watch Jaws, write their idea, submit it, hire the crew and actors, move on set, film it, edit it, and then release it.. all inside 12 months ?
I'm not saying it's impossible but to me it seems like a stretch.
I have great respect for exploitation filmmakers. Corman got War of the Satellites (1958) into theaters in six months flat after the launch of Sputnik 1... (which as a big deal in late 1957). I'm willing to believe you could go from zero to Grizzly in eleven months.
I have a lot of respect too. I do like exploitation movies.
I guess that with the techniques and technologies always evolving it makes film making more and more complex as time goes by. With that in mind, yes I guess you are right... it might have been easier (or more achievable) back then to do it inside a year.