Is Jaws3D the worst animal movie ever made?

birdsandbats said:
I would also suggest the Wild Kratts' Christmas Movie or whatever the heck it's called.
Click to expand...
I only remember one real zoological inaccuracy in Wild Kratts: a Creature Christmas; in the live-action segment, one of the Kratts said that caribou are not reindeer. It’s pretty silly and certainly isn’t as educational as the regular Wild Kratts episodes, though.
 
Moby Dick 2010, if you can get through it you need congratulating or medical help. Old Moby in 2010 is attacking a submarine.

The original is a piece of art, this is a piece of .......

If nothing else you will wince and laugh.
 
I can't claim to have seen many of these films; but I did see Orca on TV a long time ago. It's a remake of Jaws, with a more intelligent monster. I admit that I can only remember the scene in which the rogue bull Orca smashes the stern of small boat and munches on one of Bo Derek's legs: I admired his choice but deplored his consuming passion (if you see what I mean). I also remember that there was an awfully ancient mariner who only stopped overacting when he got eaten in the last reel - but I had to look at Wikipedia to find that he was played by the late Richard Harris.
 
I'm kind of a sucker for animal horror movies. However, while Jaws 3D is bad, there are quite a bunch of movies in this category that are worse, even if not including products produced by The Asylum. Like the "Birdemic"-series.
 
Last edited:
Birdsage said:
in the live-action segment, one of the Kratts said that caribou are not reindeer.
Click to expand...
Well well .. this is something of a kettle of worms between American and European zoo enthusiasts ...
In Europe, the species, Rangifer tarandus [though .. I will say that some propose there may be a few more species in Rangifer even!] in both its domestic and wild varieties that are found in Europe, is referred to as 'reindeer'. This is also the general name when referring to the species. However, the wild populations of Rangifer found in North America are typically referred to in Europe as 'caribou'. Thus, Europeans can say that the American caribou has not been domesticated, but the Eurasian reindeer has.
Whereas .. in America, the word used to describe Rangifer seems to depend mainly on context .. in North America, a 'reindeer' is a domesticated animal which belongs to Rangifer, which has been bred for thousands of years for desirable traits, whereas, a 'caribou' is one which has not been domesticated for such traits. Which makes me wonder whether they refer to the wild Rangifer in Europe as reindeer too ...
What I presume here is that the Kratts are trying to explain, that by the American lexicon, that domesticated members of Rangifer =/= the wild members of Rangifer, native to the North American continent. Which, when said in a quick manner, takes on a rather confusing form ...
 
dillotest0 said:
Well well .. this is something of a kettle of worms between American and European zoo enthusiasts ...
In Europe, the species, Rangifer tarandus [though .. I will say that some propose there may be a few more species in Rangifer even!] in both its domestic and wild varieties that are found in Europe, is referred to as 'reindeer'. This is also the general name when referring to the species. However, the wild populations of Rangifer found in North America are typically referred to in Europe as 'caribou'. Thus, Europeans can say that the American caribou has not been domesticated, but the Eurasian reindeer has.
Whereas .. in America, the word used to describe Rangifer seems to depend mainly on context .. in North America, a 'reindeer' is a domesticated animal which belongs to Rangifer, which has been bred for thousands of years for desirable traits, whereas, a 'caribou' is one which has not been domesticated for such traits. Which makes me wonder whether they refer to the wild Rangifer in Europe as reindeer too ...
What I presume here is that the Kratts are trying to explain, that by the American lexicon, that domesticated members of Rangifer =/= the wild members of Rangifer, native to the North American continent. Which, when said in a quick manner, takes on a rather confusing form ...
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware that strictly speaking, “reindeer” are either domesticated animals or wild Eurasian ones, whereas caribou are the wild animals in North America. However, from what I can tell, both terms are usually used to refer to the genus as a whole, which I have only ever seen treated as one species.
 
Birdsage said:
Yes, I am aware that strictly speaking, “reindeer” are either domesticated animals or wild Eurasian ones, whereas caribou are the wild animals in North America. However, from what I can tell, both terms are usually used to refer to the genus as a whole, which I have only ever seen treated as one species.
Click to expand...
Though speaking of reindeer ...
upload_2023-3-25_17-17-46.png
I have noticed a number of Christmas movies which use live reindeer are filmed around the Summer / Autumn period - meaning that they would have attributes that they probably would not at Christmas eve - e.g. velvety antlers, rough coat retaining a few hairs from the previous winter.
I recall even a recent McDonald's Christmas advert, which had Computer Generated reindeer instead, even had them with [light-coloured] velvet antlers - for reasons I am unsure. Maybe something along the lines of 'fluffy antler cute' or something like this.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2023-3-25_17-17-46.png
    upload_2023-3-25_17-17-46.png
    755.2 KB · Views: 30
I usually excuse the inaccurate depiction of reindeer in Christmas movies with the fact that they're magic reindeer. Like, they can fly and stuff, it's obviously a different kind of animal, so maybe their antlers just work differently.

Now, a reindeer-in-fiction thing that does bug me is that in illustrated and animated media, they're presented as looking more like white-tailed deer than actual reindeer. That is where I draw the line. I'm curious to know where that started. I think it may have started with Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer. The creators based the illustrations off of deer from a local zoo, but I don't know if they were the first to do that.
 
TheMightyOrca said:
I usually excuse the inaccurate depiction of reindeer in Christmas movies with the fact that they're magic reindeer. Like, they can fly and stuff, it's obviously a different kind of animal, so maybe their antlers just work differently.

Now, a reindeer-in-fiction thing that does bug me is that in illustrated and animated media, they're presented as looking more like white-tailed deer than actual reindeer. That is where I draw the line. I'm curious to know where that started. I think it may have started with Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer. The creators based the illustrations off of deer from a local zoo, but I don't know if they were the first to do that.
Click to expand...
[URL="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhiteTailedReindeer"]White-Tailed Reindeer - TV Tropes[/URL]
 
I could go on about common animal inaccuracies in animation and illustration, ha ha.

But as for the original post about Jaws 3D: terrible movie, though I consider it so bad, it's good. And I find it really amusing that SeaWorld approved the use of their brand name in a movie about how an irresponsible, greedy SeaWorld park operator gets a bunch of people killed. Like, what were they thinking?
 
So I suddenly found this thing a while ago, and recalled this thread.
youtube.com/watch?v=PRwYqZ4CUJY
"Noah and the Aardvark" - an almost hour-long movie about ... Noah's Ark, methinks. I will point out that this movie was made by a Jewish organisation, and so I will try to refrain from complaining about its informational qualities, rather focusing on its visual performance.
And .. there's quite a lot to unpick with the visual performance. Realistic human models which look straight from uncanny valley. There's a fairly decent animal segment in the beginning with serviceable models and animation .. but the longer one looks at the people, the worse it progressively gets. And this opening turns out to be something of a facade, as it's merely an intro to a setting which is some kind of school-aquarium-ArkEncounter sort of thing complete with stylised, peanut-shaped children. The clashing styles are rather obvious.. The movie has about as many grating facts to leach out the various school segments, some of which may well fly over a child's head. In one of the Torah segments, a slightly-less-than-serviceable tiger appears, and is accompinied by some rather .. excuse me .. devillish looking creatures. Basic housecat model painted with tiger's texture...
And in regards to the school segments which the two interchange between ... they provide quite little in terms of plot points, it's just the teacher and his children rather basic facts about whatever ... aand, aabout that aardvark ...
It doesn't even appear in the movie itself .. the only aardvark action we see is when the peanut-shaped kids start talking about an aardvark at one point ...and the teacher says that there is a replica in the museum .. but it is never seen! At one point one of the kids says how they "kind of look like a little okapi". ...??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top