It's an ending so much more satisfying than this film's ending where it's not the ingenuity of the heroes that saves them from the raptors but a T-Rex (and how the hell did the T-Rex sneak up on them like that in the first place?).
share[deleted]
Well, my post is as much about "JP" as it is about "Jaws." I just didn't lead with "JP." Which I probably should have -- thanks for pointing that out.
But to continue with Brody, all throughout "Jaws" we frequently see him depending on others. It's not until the end, when there's no one else, that he has to finally depend solely on himself. It's a wonderful piece of character development. Brody's equivalent in "JP" -- Grant -- goes from being someone uncomfortable around kids to a positive paternal presence in two kids' lives. Now, as character development, that's nice and all, but this newfound paternalism is not used in the climax to save his charges. His newfound paternalism never has a pay-off. Brody's fear of the ocean and his inability to be totally self-reliant does have a pay-off: he puts aside his fears, because the alternative is death, and faces the shark. It's a pay-off that's thrilling ... and also unexpectedly poignant.
Don't get me wrong: I like both movies. I just feel Brody's character arc gives "Jaws," ultimately, the edge.
No doubt Spielberg wanted to feature the T-Rex once more in the climax of the movie for merchandise reasons. But just because he did that kind of character arc once in Jaws, he has to do it again? Kind of repetitive.
shareI wouldn't say he needed to do it again. I just wish "Jurassic Park"'s climax had more of an emotional pay-off; compared to "Jaws"'s climax it feels rather empty.
share[deleted]
(and how the hell did the T-Rex sneak up on them like that in the first place?).