Jaws shipping box !!!

[MaulFan]

See, I don't think it's for the better, I absolutely love the Bruce design, I even enjoy it more than actual Great Whites, and would love to have a full shark model depicting all those other little touches that define him and really make the "face" look like Bruce and not so much just a shark. I'd say the maquette's like 80-90% there, but some of the things that stand out to me most about Bruce are missing, like his nose really coming to a point and sticking out further. The maquette almost seems like it was rounded off for safety purposes.

 

[LOTRFan]

The maquette almost seems like it was rounded off for safety purposes.

What so people don't use him as a dart?

 

[MaulFan]

What so people don't use him as a dart?

I really don't know, but I swear the prototype came more to a point. Maybe it had to do with the production process, I just know my first thought when the production one came out was that the nose tip wasn't as pointy as I expected and it made me think someone rounded for safety, not that anyone actually would, but that was the only reason I could think of but there's much about production I don't know and so it is what it is.

 

[Scar]

See, I don't think it's for the better, I absolutely love the Bruce design, I even enjoy it more than actual Great Whites, and would love to have a full shark model depicting all those other little touches that define him and really make the "face" look like Bruce and not so much just a shark. I'd say the maquette's like 80-90% there, but some of the things that stand out to me most about Bruce are missing, like his nose really coming to a point and sticking out further. The maquette almost seems like it was rounded off for safety purposes.

I think it definitely depends upon your perspective, then. I'm looking at it from a purely ichthyological stance. Having the snout pointed as much as it was in the original, and the jaw so angular cuts down on laminar flow; it's why even in the most nimble and swift of shark species have a slightly rounded snout with incorporated, rounded jaw that blends into the rest of the body plan. Without these, laminar slow is impeded and the shark has less navigational flexibility in the water. This is also why osteichthyan fish species have a slime layer and chondrichthyan fish species have denticles - to be able to glide more smoothly and efficiently through water with greater command of pitch, yaw, and roll. A wide surface area with points and angles accumulates a larger drag coefficient than a smooth, tapering one. Not 100% spot on with the movie design, and I understand why some would pine for a Bruce maquette that is closer to the original, but for me there isn't any contest. Just my opinion, but I'm a zoology nerd who spends most of his time writing reports on these creatures, so I prioritize a bit differently.

 

[MaulFan]

Yeah, I'm a movie buff and I want it to look like what was on screen.

 

[Scar]

Fair enough. I'm a movie buff whose life's work is in animals, and since Sideshow has so many movie and wildlife aficionados alike in their ranks, I'd say that's why the maquette looks the way it does. A good thing to me, but for purists there is a bust that circulates every so often with the correct snout. A friend of mine with a ludicrous amount of JAWS memorabilia has one and it's quite impressive in person.

 

[MaulFan]

I've seen the photos, given the money and opportunity to snag it, I would pick it up in a heart beat.

I am quite happy with how close Sideshow's is though, some other companies put some pieces out that really from the gills back look like a real White and the head doesn't look like Bruce or a White.

 

[holtrax]

One example, quickly, the lower jaw shape. On Bruce, it's almost square off, there are corners at the front, on the maquette it's completely circular.

The upper jaw also goes more almost straight back into the body on Bruce, but on Sideshow's it slopes down to the "jowels".

Like I said, it's not like tragically off, it's a great maquett of him, but there are some features that aren't right and from certain viewing angles he doesn't look as good. The maquette looks great from a profile, most of the off elements I know of really impact the front on and overhead views, though the snout length is noticable in profile.

I dunno about the inaccuracy of this maquette. I think its pretty accurate to the original design. A lot of the reason it is off in certain places to the original design is the fact that the character suffered from being in the water(its design warped a lot according to the filmmakers commentary) so much they had to carry out running repairs on it. I think they spielberg ended up dubbing it as looking like a giant floating turd in the final days of shooting. Sure its off in places as you pointed out i.e the snout but i think they would have risked making the maquette look a bit rubbish if they were to design it 100 per cent accurate to the film.

As it stands it looks like a mixture between the actual bruce the shark design and a real great white.