logo
Is ‘Jaws' what made us all fear sharks?

Is ‘Jaws' what made us all fear sharks?

CNN20-06-2025
We hardly see the cartilaginous villain of 'Jaws' before it tears through a skinny-dipper, a dog, a little boy and an overconfident fisherman.
It takes nearly two hours to finally watch the great white shark leap out of the water to swallow the gruff veteran Quint. Until then, we only really catch its dorsal fin before victims are ripped under the waves as the water around them turns the color of ketchup.
'Jaws' is credited with inventing the summer blockbuster. It inspired decades of creature features and suspenseful flicks. It kickstarted a whole subgenre of shark-centric horror (with diminishing returns). It also inflamed our fear of sharks as man-eating monsters, said Jennifer Martin, an environmental historian who teaches at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
'I'm struggling to think of a parallel example of a film that so powerfully shaped our understanding of another creature,' she said. 'They were killing machines. They were not really creatures. They weren't playing an ecological role.'
Fifty years on, 'Jaws' preys on our existing fears of the oceanic unknown. The film even briefly influenced the popularity of shark-killing tournaments after its release, Martin said. But it also enticed marine biologists and researchers to better understand the deranged shark at its center.
Real white sharks are not as large as the demonic fish in 'Jaws,' nor do they hunt humans for bloodsport. But they are certainly intimidating, and they do occasionally bite the odd swimmer, sometimes fatally.
'Being bitten by a wild animal, and in particular one that lives in the ocean, was frightening for us already,' said Gregory Skomal, a marine biologist who has spent decades studying white sharks. 'That's really what I think 'Jaws' did — it put the fear in our face.'
When 'Jaws' premiered to an invigorated public in June 1975, most of the research on sharks focused on preventing shark attacks, Skomal said.
'We knew it was big, it could swim fast and we knew it bit people,' he said. 'So those aspects of the film are fairly accurate, just exaggerated.'
White sharks like the toothy menace of 'Jaws' already had a reputation for violence by the time the film premiered, Skomal said: There had been recorded attacks on fishermen and scuba divers in Australia and surfers in California.
But sharks didn't evolve to feed on humans, Skomal said: They've existed for at least 400 million years — they predate dinosaurs by several hundred million. Sharks only encountered people in their waters in the last few thousand years, since we started exploring by sea.
Though there's some disagreement, most shark researchers believe shark attacks are a case of mistaken identity: A shark may confuse a person for prey. They typically take a bite, realize their mistake and move on, Skomal said.
Not so in 'Jaws.' The film's shark dispatches his victims with purpose, munching on some body parts while leaving a head or arm as a warning to any who dare swim in his waters.
'That's one of the reasons the film is so powerful,' Martin said. 'None of us want to look like food.'
In the decades before 'Jaws,' white sharks weren't considered to be among the ocean's most fearsome predators.
In the early 20th century, many sharks were thought of as 'garbage eaters,' Martin said: Coastal cities dumped their garbage in the ocean, and clever sharks learned to anticipate the barges' arrival. Sharks, city dwellers thought, were 'not very beautiful, not very commercially important,' Martin said. 'An animal that's in an in-between space — sort of a pest, sort of dangerous.'
After some misbegotten attempts to fish sharks commercially, humans started to invade the waters where sharks hung out, and sharks graduated from pest to predator. With the popularization of maritime activities like scuba diving and surfing in the mid-20th century, people were spending more time underwater, which meant they were more likely to bump into a shark, Martin said.
'There were so many more humans in there,' said Gavin Naylor, director of the Florida Program for Shark Research at the Florida Museum of Natural History. 'It was just a matter of time before people got nobbled.'
Previously, shark tales were mostly traded between fishermen who encountered them on the high seas. Now, with more people exploring 'shark-infested waters,' run-ins with sharks were getting picked up by local newspapers. A particularly scary documentary, 1971's 'Blue Water, White Death,' which featured a tense confrontation with aggressive white sharks, also helped shape our view of sharks as creatures to be feared, Skomal said — but 'Jaws' cemented it.
The glee with which Amity Island's fishermen hunt would-be killer sharks wasn't totally fictional, either. Shark fishing tourneys already existed in the US prior to the success of 'Jaws,' but the film brought new publicity to the competitions and the sport of hunting 'trophy sharks,' Martin said.
'The killing of these animals became sanctioned, approved of, as a result of the film,' Martin said.
Peter Benchley, who wrote the 1974 novel upon which the film was based, expressed some regret that some audiences viewed sharks as man-eating monsters because of 'Jaws,' a work of pure, pulpy fiction.
''Jaws,' the movie particularly, sparked a spurt of macho madness,' he told southwest Florida's News-Press in 2005. 'People were running around saying, 'Hey, let's slaughter sharks.''
Benchley later spent many years steeped in shark advocacy.
Most contemporary audiences left 'Jaws' cheering for Chief Brody after he successfully exploded the monstrous shark (and overcame his fear of the open ocean, to boot!). But even scaredy cats couldn't deny that big old shark was fascinating.
'They are charismatic,' Martin said. 'They command our attention through their size, the way their bodies are shaped, their morphology, their behavior. But the big part of it is their ability to turn us into food. We don't like to be reminded of it, but we are food in an ecosystem.'
Our morbid fascination with white sharks' ability to kill us drove the success of 'Jaws' and, eventually, decades of 'Shark Week,' Discovery's annual TV marathon that always features programs about fatal run-ins with sharks. (Discovery and CNN share a parent company.)
'We're drawn to things that could potentially hurt us,' Skomal said. 'And sharks have that unique history of being an animal, to this day, that can still harm us. The probability is extremely rare, but it's an animal that's shrouded in the ocean environment. We're land animals.'
In the intervening years between the advent of shark fishing tournaments and our present, when dozens of nonprofits exist solely to serve shark conservation efforts, researchers have gotten to know the creatures beyond their enormous teeth.
'The negative perception of sharks at the time — which was tapped into and exacerbated by 'Jaws' — I think has definitely changed into fascination, respect, a desire to conserve, a desire to interact with and protect,' Skomal said.
Now that we better understand their role in our underwater ecosystems — at the top of the food chain, they maintain balance by keeping the species below them in check — we can better appreciate white sharks (while maintaining a healthy dose of caution in waters they occupy), Martin said.
Appreciation for sharks is especially important since several sharks species' populations have been on the decline, largely due to overfishing — sharks are often accidentally caught and killed.
So it's perfectly wonderful to love sharks and want to protect them, said Naylor — just don't get too comfortable around them.
'Sharks are becoming the new cuddly whales,' he said. 'They're not. They are predaceous fishes that are efficient. They don't target people, but in certain conditions when water is murky, they make mistakes.'
Need reminding of the potential dangers sharks can pose? Just watch 'Jaws.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Needham Maintains Buy Rating on The Walt Disney Company (DIS) Stock
Needham Maintains Buy Rating on The Walt Disney Company (DIS) Stock

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Needham Maintains Buy Rating on The Walt Disney Company (DIS) Stock

The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) is one of the Reddit Stocks with the Highest Upside Potential. On August 7, Laura Martin from Needham maintained a 'Buy' rating on the company's stock, with a price objective of $125.00. The analyst's rating is backed by several positive developments for The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) in Q3 2025. Notably, the company's diluted EPS rose to $2.92 from $1.43 in Q3 2024, and adjusted EPS went up by 16% for Q3 2025 to $1.61 from $1.39 in Q3 2024. A packed theater of moviegoers watching a blockbuster film produced by the entertainment company. Furthermore, The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS)'s direct-to-consumer segment demonstrated profitability with an operating income of $346 million. The company's Experiences segment saw operating income of $2.5 billion, reflecting a rise of $294 million compared to Q3 2024. The operating income in the quarter demonstrates a ~$40 million benefit from the timing of the Easter holiday, and a ~$30 million impact from pre-opening expenses at Disney Cruise Line. Despite the concerns, the positive financial performance and strategic initiatives, like asset swap involving ESPN and the NFL Network, as well as the timely launch of ESPN's flagship service, supported the analyst's rating. Diamond Hill Capital, an investment management company, released its Q1 2025 investor letter. Here is what the fund said: 'Other top Q2 contributors included The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS), Ferguson Enterprises and Capital One Financial. Diversified media and entertainment company Walt Disney benefited from easing macroeconomic concerns, primarily in its parks division, which is particularly sensitive to the economic backdrop.' While we acknowledge the potential of DIS as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 13 Cheap AI Stocks to Buy According to Analysts and 11 Unstoppable Growth Stocks to Invest in Now Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Don't Be a Loser, Gen X Baby
Don't Be a Loser, Gen X Baby

New York Times

time29 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Don't Be a Loser, Gen X Baby

Pour out a Zima for Gen X-ers, who will never end up running the world. This was the theme of a Wall Street Journal article recently about corporations that are skipping over the Slacker generation — those of us born between 1965 and 1980 — and promoting millennials instead to C.E.O. As The Journal put it, presumably channeling the anxieties of one of the paper's frustrated editors: 'As they enter what is usually the prime, C-suite career stage, more businesses are retaining their aging leaders or skipping a generation in search of the next ones.' I was born in 1976, and my reaction to this news was, in Gen X parlance, whatever, man. The disappointment some X-ers feel about this is indicative of an inherent contradiction: They did not trust institutions, empty ambitions and rampant consumerism when they were young, but still feel let down when, as middle-aged adults, the system has not delivered the professional success and extreme run-up of home equity that boomers have accrued. This is especially true of X-ers who happen to be white and male and C.E.O.-shaped. And it's a bummer! In theory, these X-ers were well aware that their parents were probably going to be better off than they themselves would ever be and couldn't decide whether to be angry about it pre-emptively or to just slackerishly opt out of the corporate and political structures that led to it altogether. The Canadian writer Douglas Coupland, who popularized the term 'Generation X' with his 1991 novel of that name, had a character in it named Dag, who puts it thus: 'I don't know … whether I feel more that I want to punish some aging crock for frittering away my world or whether I'm just upset that the world has gotten too big — way beyond our capacity to tell stories about it, and so all we're stuck with are those blips and chunks and snippets on bumpers.' Mr. Coupland has an entire chapter titled 'Our Parents Had More.' And you know what? They did. Education was cheaper, cities were less gentrified and corporations at least put on a show of being loyal to their employees. Many of us aging Gen X-ers work in the gig economy, piecing together several jobs and hoping our potential income isn't undermined by the post-human, tech-oligarch-enriching promises of A.I. As a result, many of us are now background players in the grand narratives we imagined for ourselves. In the words of the iconic X-er band Pavement, we've 'been chosen as an extra in the movie adaptation of the sequel to your life.' These circumstances have turned some of us into self-pitying whiners. (Maybe we always have been: Cue Beck whining, 'I'm a loser, baby.') I've heard so many X-ers complain incessantly about younger generations. First, millennials, but now Gen Z-ers, are accused of not wanting to do any work, being too sensitive, not wanting to pay their dues. But boomers looked down on us, too, and I'm not sure our failure to remember that can be exclusively explained by the brain cells we killed by disregarding Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' campaign, or by the perimenopausal brain fog some of us are experiencing. The younger generations are not lazier; they're just more skeptical of institutions than we are. They can already see that they may not be better off than our generation. And the fact that they think John Hughes movies are more creepy than cute does not mean that they're prudes or sensitive little snowflakes. The inability to accept this may explain why so many Gen X-ers voted for Donald Trump. If they view him as anti-establishment, he validates their need to feel that they're being subversive. If you see a post that used generative A.I. to make Mr. Trump look like a U.F.C. fighter or Rambo, I'll bet you a bottle of Boone's Farm Strawberry Hill that it was made by a Gen X-er. Mr. Trump is more Beavis or Butt-Head than John Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt, and that appeals in the sense that he annoys the responsible grown-ups, which X-ers have loved doing since 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off.' And mostly, he gives them a story that says: Yes, you were lied to, and that's why your life sucks, dude. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Sydney Sweeney rocks blue jeans as she breaks social media silence after American Eagle ad controversy
Sydney Sweeney rocks blue jeans as she breaks social media silence after American Eagle ad controversy

Fox News

time31 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Sydney Sweeney rocks blue jeans as she breaks social media silence after American Eagle ad controversy

Sydney Sweeney made a denim-clad return to social media three weeks after the release of her controversial American Eagle "Good Jeans" ad campaign. On Friday, the 27-year-old actress, who has not publicly commented on the ad or its mixed reception, shared a carousel of photos on Instagram in which she was seen rocking a pair of oversized blue jeans and a white lace-front crop top while spending a night out at a bar with friends. "duval diaries." Sweeney wrote in the caption. In one photo, Sweeney was seen kicking her leg up as she posed with a group of friends, who also wore denim or blue and white ensembles. Sweeney and a friend appeared to be performing karaoke as they stood back to back on a stage while holding microphones in another snap. In another image, Sweeney was seen holding a tray of drinks while surrounded by a group of friends as they beamed at the camera. Other snaps featured "The White Lotus" actress dancing with her friends at the crowded venue. American Eagle debuted their ad campaign titled "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans" last month, which received a divided response on social media. Some dubbed the campaign "tone-deaf" due to alleged racial undertones, others have praised Sweeney for killing "woke" advertising. In a promo video posted to the brand's Instagram, Sweeney was seen walking toward an AE billboard featuring her and the tagline "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes." Sweeney crossed out "Genes" and replaced it with "Jeans" before walking away. In a second ad, Sweeney was seen laying down and fastening her jeans while saying, "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color." The camera then panned up to her blue eyes, and she said "My jeans are blue." The ad's detractors have suggested that it has shades of "eugenics" and "White supremacy." According to Salon, the term "great genes" was historically used to "celebrate whiteness, thinness and attractiveness." American Eagle released a statement on its social media on Aug. 1, which read, "'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone." While speaking with Fox News Digital, Reputation Management Consultants CEO Eric Schiffer explained how controversy could potentially turbocharge the actress' career along with her net worth. "The AE firestorm shoved Sweeney into toxic culture-war crosshairs — exactly where attention monetizes fastest," he said. "Backlash may spook a few 'safe' brands, but risk-tolerant studios will ruthlessly overpay for her heat. "American Eagle's denim blitz could jam an outrage cocktail of $5 million more in Sweeney's wallet before Labor Day. The viral jeans spot is a ruthless napalm-grade cash cannon — every click fires fresh royalty checks at her $40 million pile. Critics rant, but controversy drives denim sales — she's riding a volatile tornado straight to the bank." Schiffer also explained that the backlash the actress has received could lead to an influx of career opportunities for her. "Outrage addicts labeled the ad 'eugenics' but Hollywood execs smell radioactive buzz and cast her faster," he said. "Hollywood forgives denim puns; it rewards controversial cash." Schiffer continued, "She proved she can take heat and directors love an actress with fierce armor. Her blend of bombshell and backlash is near lethal catnip for producers. Hollywood loves a polarizing star with a merciless marketing punch that sells." However, PR expert Steve Honig voiced his opinion that the backlash was unlikely to affect Sweeney's career. "Regardless of which side you are on, the ads have undeniably gotten the actress, and the company, more attention and publicity than they have ever had. Judging by the public's split opinion, I don't think this will have much, if any, impact on Sweeney's career or upcoming projects," he said. "She is a popular, up-and-coming talent with a bright future ahead of her." Honig went on to cite other ad campaigns that saw great success by courting controversy. "Historically, ads for jeans have been provocative," he noted. "Look back to Calvin Klein's advertising campaign in the early 1980s featuring Brooke Shields; there was a lot of criticism about how a 15-year-old girl was being portrayed. The ads turned out to have a positive result for both Klein and Shields, and in many ways put the actress/model on the map." Honig continued, "As far as the Sweeney ads being too sexual or aimed at 'male gazing,' I would point to the highly successful Pepsi ad campaign with Cindy Crawford, which was recently rebooted. Gloria Vanderbilt's advertising campaign was all about her name being on a woman's backside." "The bottom line here is that American Eagle decided to push the envelope in much the same way Klein and Vanderbilt did," he added. "Like it or not, the campaign is sparking discussion and getting a lot of notice, which is likely what they set out to do."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store