When Jaws made a huge splash at the summer box office of 1975, it kicked off a creature feature renaissance. Soon, silver screens across the nation were filled with a zoo-full of giant, violent animals ripping people to shreds. Many of these were forgettable schlock that tried, and failed, to make an impression. However, there were a few shipwrecks full of treasure in the sea of mediocrity and Piranha, the 1978 Roger Corman-produced knock-off, was one of them. It started life as a cash-in, but like its main antagonist, Piranha mutated into a whole new animal when it was rebooted in 2010. So, in this Bat Bites double feature, I’m going to talk about BOTH the 1978 and the 2010 Piranha films to see how 32 years makes a difference.
Originally released the same summer as Jaws 2, Piranha (1978) almost didn’t make it to the screen, as the studio behind the Jaws franchise, Universal, was going to sue to stop its release due to it being too similar to the about-to-be-released Jaws 2. However, a certain young director named Steven Spielberg gave the film his blessing and saved it from a watery grave. (Yes, it’s another water analogy and no, I will not stop.) Thanks to Spielberg throwing out his life-preserver of an “endorsement,” which I put in quotes because it was very back-handed, Piranha (1978) went on to be a financial success, albeit not quite a critical one, that spawned a sequel, a reboot, another reboot, and a sequel to that reboot.
A few puppets turn into hundreds with some creative editing.
Whenever Roger Corman’s name is attached to a movie, there’s a certain level of quality you can assume. This is usually due to the shoestring budget Corman would impose. Piranha (1978) was no exception, even having its budget cut MORE than what was originally quoted. So, what we get is a horror comedy that barely shows its main antagonists and is light on quality in the script department. But, due to its low budget, creative workarounds had to be used to instill a sense of anxiety and fear and the cinematography more than makes up for it. Tension is built with audio cues of the piranhas bubbling sound under water as the attack crescendos into violent blink-and-you’ll-miss-it camera cuts to different angles of what are clearly fake fish being jiggled against their victim. Add some seeping red water and it heightens the violence of the attacks without having to get too graphic (guts cost money, you know). By doing this (over and over and over again, probably with more than a few reused cuts), they were still able to build that dread and fear without being explicit about the action, which is something the reboot chose to do in a vastly different way.
This little cutie deserves its own movie. Oh, who am I kidding... It'd just end up as a Mac & Me knock-off.
Piranha (2010), AKA Piranha 3D, had something going for it that Piranha (1978) did not: a budget and the availability of computer graphics. In the reboot, which really only shares the name and species of antagonist from the original, they chose to juice up the fish by making them killer dinosaurs, which facilitated a cool new look that, thanks to CG, was easily obtainable (albeit with graphics that were dated even back in 2010). That isn’t to say there weren’t practical effect involved. However, thanks to the low-cost of the digital age of filmmaking, they were able to explicitly show the piranha attacks. VERY explicitly, in NSFW ways which Jerry O’Connell’s character could attest to.
Besides special effects, Piranha (2010) also utilizes something the original couldn’t: distance in time from the source material. In 1978. Piranha was a knockoff, pure and simple, since Jaws was still very fresh in the sea of pop culture. Separate the reference from its source by 30+ years, however, and it becomes an homage. This is set up right from the get-go in the opening moments of the movie, when none other than Richard Dreyfuss, who starred in the first Jaws film, is fishing in a lake and ends up being the first victim of the prehistoric menace. The movie goes on from there with its tongue firmly planted in cheek, mixing over the top comedy with every creature feature trope in the book. It knows exactly what it, and its predecessor, are and it leans heavily into it. It straddles a very fine line between remake and parody and I would argue it stumbles across the parody line quite a bit. However, this doesn’t lessen the effect of the effort, especially if you are familiar with the source material.
Digital dino fish menace digitally.
Piranha (2010) stumbles into the parody territory often comes from the difference in humor between 1978 and 2010. The writing in the original Piranha was very Corman-esque, meaning it comes off as very “first draft” sounding without any of the punch-ups one expects of a script. The jokes are jokes, and we KNOW they’re supposed to be jokes, but they’re just not very funny. They might have received a chuckle in the late 70s, but by modern standards they’re very shallow (I’d argue they weren’t good back then, either, considering some of the all-time great comedies that came out in the 70s). Today, comedy is much more direct and over-the-top, especially in a movie like Piranha (2010) that likes to take a (skinny) dip into the parody pool. Like when a certain character’s manhood becomes a snack for a piranha, there’s a build up to the joke with the character asking if his you-know-what is ok after he was attacked. As the scene ends, you’re very explicitly shown that it is not. This more in-your-face comedy style amps up the attention to the source material and pushes it well underwater into parody territory. It’s still not very funny, per se, but you’ll at least crack an ironic grin every once in a while.
Jerry O'Connell's sleazy porn king before the piranhas ensure he will never have any children.
When I watched these two movies, I did so back-to-back. This is likely not the best way to watch them, as one notices rather too easily just how different these two movies are. If you’re anything like me, you can’t help but think upon the differences between these films and how, while technically the same film, their dissimilarity runs deeper than the Marianas Trench. I will say, however, that Piranha (1978) does have a fin up on Piranha (2010) since it actually has an ending and resolves the story. We don’t get anything resembling a resolution to the reboot until its sequel, Piranha DD (or “3DD” depending on the version you’re watching), where they somewhat borrow from the ending of the original during the opening recap of the previous film.
So, what is it about the Piranha franchise that has brought it through five films and not one, but TWO reboots? Well… I don’t think it’s anything, really. I think the original has a small claim to a place in the hallowed Halls of Horror as a creature feature that is “bad but good.” But the (second) reboot?... Not so much. Without knowing what you’re getting into, Piranha (2010) only gets by on its self-referential-verging-on-self-deprecating writing, and even that is paper thin and barely held together with copious amounts of nudity and gore. Both films are very much “of their times,” with Piranha (1978) leading the shoal as a film that didn’t need to hide what it was and successfully reveled in it. Yes, Piranha (2010) also revels in what it is, but less successfully due to it already feeling dated in 2010. That isn’t to say it’s rotting bucket of chum. It does have bits of sunken treasure glinting through the blood-stained waters. The average viewer might end up with a headache from rolling their eyes too much, but for those who are more attuned to finding bits of treasure in a shipwreck of a film, the reboot has a whole chest’s worth of bounty. Personally, I didn’t dislike either film. I understand their faults and can appreciate both despite them. They’re both fun films IF you are in the right mindset, which, like their antagonists, is little more than thoughtless gleeful consumption.