SAW 2 : Mega Box Office Success ?

[JamesU]

Seven had an underlying plot and morals involved. ...and serves as a medium to get out its message about morals and values. .

So as long as the killings are biblical in nature means it's moral?

 

[Gale]

i did NOT say the killings were moral. I said the movie was a piece about morals and values, and the killing of the characters served to get the message out. I can appreciate the movie as an art piece because of this. I could not, however, appreciate an actuality of the movie. read more carefully, i never implied biblical means moral, nor did i imply the killings were moral. The MOVIE was ABOUT morals.

 

[DM]

Never pondered on seeing any Saw movie but it seems to me that this is another "scary movie" film genre.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I liked Saw 1, haven't seen Saw 2. Waiting to see Hostel: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/

 

[Evo]

I never saw saw. But a friend of mine did see saw. One of my students saw saw too and I think he was going to see saw two. My friend (who saw saw but did not see saw two) thought saw was so so. My student (who saw saw and went to see saw two too) thought saw was great. I don't intend to see saw and I won't say saw sucks, nor saw two (if I never saw saw two I can't say saw two sucks) but so many say saw is worth seeing and if you see saw you're supposed to see saw two too. But I won't be saying if saw, saw two, or anything I've never seen is worth seeing or if it sucks.

 

[JamesU]

I liked Saw 1, haven't seen Saw 2. Waiting to see Hostel: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/

I can't wait for that one. Looks very brutal though, I've seen some of the clips

 

[zoobyshoe]

<sighs>
No Zooby,
I am not promoting such behaviour,

I never said you were. I said, in effect, you are promoting approval of the character of the serial killer:

No, he made her realize something...LIFE IS PRECIOUS...Embrace it...
This movie promotes the "respect life"-principle.
marlon

i was outlining what the movie is about.

Which you characterized as:

This movie promotes the "respect life"-principle.
marlon

Which is a gross misunderstanding of the film. You are mistaking the killer's rationalization of his crimes as the principle the film is promoting.

I was illustrating the killer's motif.

In this film the killer rationalizes his crimes by claiming his victims didn't appreciate their lives. He adopts a false "high moral ground" to justify his sadism. However, you construe this as the movie promoting a "respect-life" principle. In other words, you think the killer is the good guy:

No, he made her realize something...LIFE IS PRECIOUS...Embrace it...
This movie promotes the "respect life"-principle.
marlon

What you are clearly saying here is that the killer is doing a good thing.
You think he is teaching people to appreciate life.
The movie is not promoting a "respect-life" principle. You are completely wrong in asserting that. The killer is also not teaching anyone that life is precious. He is just destroying their lives under the pretext that he is punishing people who deserve it.

All these posts of mine are almost exact quotes from the movie.

Which has what to do with anything?

This is not my personal opinion.

What's not your personal opinion? You are posting someone else's opinions here? If so, you neglected to say so.

There is a line between fiction and reality, you know.
Besides, even if it were my opinion (which it is NOT), i really should not be answering to you, should I ? Care to explain, hu ?
regards
marlon

Looks like when you don't know what to say you adopt a patronizing attitude.

 

[JamesU]

Zooby, got over it, it's a movie. HOSTEL is going to be a lot more senseless and brutal anyway:P

 

[zoobyshoe]

So as long as the killings are biblical in nature means it's moral?

Yommama, what are you up to? You've been consistantly mischaracterizing Gale's posts. Are you doing this on purpose?

 

[JamesU]

Yommama, what are you up to? You've been consistantly mischaracterizing Gale's posts. Are you doing this on purpose?

I am not "up to" anything. I'm asking her questions to understand what she means.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am not "up to" anything. I'm asking her questions to understand what she means.

So, what do you think the diference between Saw and Seven is, if any?

 

[JamesU]

There are many differences between them but I'm not going to answer the question because this is getting old. Get over it, it's a movie

 

[zoobyshoe]

There are many differences between them but I'm not going to answer the question because this is getting old. Get over it, it's a movie

You're barking up the wrong tree. The movie hardly bothers me. It is just two kids attempt to come up with the next twist in an already twisty genre.

 

[marlon]

I liked Saw 1, haven't seen Saw 2. Waiting to see Hostel: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/

Wow, seems very impressive.

Thanks for the link Greg

marlon

 

[marlon]

I never said you were. I said, in effect, you are promoting approval of the character of the serial killer:

C'mon, that's a bit lame isn't it ? You clearly said i approved such behaviour while i am not. You just misinterpreted my words.

You are mistaking the killer's rationalization of his crimes as the principle the film is promoting.

No, i never said that. I clearly stated what the KILLER is promoting here. I never said the above sentence nor did i ever make any allusion onto it. Again, this is a misinterpretation from your part.

However, you construe this as the movie promoting a "respect-life" principle. In other words, you think the killer is the good guy:

This is a false implication (why am i not surprised). You are just putting things into my mouth that i never said nor did i ever make that implication. The mistake you keep on making is actually this : RELATIVITY. The actions are promoted from the killer's perspective. It's from his frame of reference that i made my statements. The mere fact you cannot/refuse to acknowledge this, is the origin of the misinterpretations you keep on making from your very first post on.

What you are clearly saying here is that the killer is doing a good thing.

I am not the killer you know
I was talking from his perspective. That is the whole point.
You know, one cannot just say a movie is bad because of it's content. You are totally forgetting the technical aspects of movie making here. For example, the motion picture on the last days of Hitler's life (Der Üntergang) was a picture that received international recognition for the acting, camera work, plotline, scripts, lyrics, music...Knowing the sadism linked to Hitler's person, does not justify calling it a "bad movie". Same goes for se7en...Besides, much also depends on how sadism in brought into the picture. Do you think that "seeing" people suffocate in gasschambers is more perverse than seeing only a German Officer looking through a small window and laughing ?

Again, as i have stated before, SAW is a movie that contains several above average qualities when it comes to the technical aspects.

Ofcourse, as always, hypocritical moral knights as yourself never had any eye for detecting good quality work.

You think he is teaching people to appreciate life.

NO I AM NOT.
You should know by now why i give this answer.

Which has what to do with anything?

I mentioned the "quotes" because it clearly demonstrates that i was referring to the killer talking, not good ol' marlon.

Unfortunately, i did not star in that movie

Looks like when you don't know what to say you adopt a patronizing attitude.

Does it really look like that, hu ?

regards
marlon

 

[zeronem]

I have to say that this is the most hilarious thread I've ever read. You guys argue like brothers and sisters and then Chi Meson comes in and posts probably the most hilarious paragraph I've ever read.

I'm not much for horror films. I got to have a pure acting film. You know Dialogue, complex characters, the whole works. Films like Raging Bull, The Doors, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

What I look for in a film is a film that gives the actor lots of improvisation time. As a director you just got to let the actors go all out with no restrictions. It's much more interesting that way. I don't think I've seen a horror film that allows that kind of freedom for actors. However, it can be hard to tell if a particular scene in a film was highly improvised or directed completely. Too much improvisation can get out of hand, but you got to love acting.

 

[marlon]

What I look for in a film is a film that gives the actor lots of improvisation time.

Well, i agree but this requires very talented actors. Such quality is rare unless you are Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Jack Nicholson, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, Marcello Mastroianni, Johnny Depp, F Murray Abraham,...

marlon

 

[tribdog]

"Can't we all just get along?" ~Wilt "The Stilt" Chamberlain

 

[marlon]

"Can't we all just get along?" ~Wilt "The Stilt" Chamberlain

Yes we can, once Zooby acknowledges that SAW is indeed a true masterpiece. :)


marlon

 

[zoobyshoe]

C'mon, that's a bit lame isn't it ? You clearly said i approved such behaviour while i am not.

Clearly quote me saying it, then.

, i never said that. I clearly stated what the KILLER is promoting here. I never said the above sentence nor did i ever make any allusion onto it. Again, this is a misinterpretation from your part.

I've already quoted you saying this several times, but here it is again:

This movie promotes the "respect life"-principle.

This is a false implication (why am i not surprised). You are just putting things into my mouth that i never said nor did i ever make that implication. The mistake you keep on making is actually this : RELATIVITY. The actions are promoted from the killer's perspective. It's from his frame of reference that i made my statements. The mere fact you cannot/refuse to acknowledge this, is the origin of the misinterpretations you keep on making from your very first post on.

Here's what you said:

No, he made her realize something...LIFE IS PRECIOUS...Embrace it...

You aren't quoting anyone here.

I was talking from his perspective. That is the whole point.

No you weren't. You refer to him in the third person. What a load of bull.

You know, one cannot just say a movie is bad because of it's content. You are totally forgetting the technical aspects of movie making here. For example, the motion picture on the last days of Hitler's life (Der Üntergang) was a picture that received international recognition for the acting, camera work, plotline, scripts, lyrics, music...Knowing the sadism linked to Hitler's person, does not justify calling it a "bad movie". Same goes for se7en...Besides, much also depends on how sadism in brought into the picture. Do you think that "seeing" people suffocate in gasschambers is more perverse than seeing only a German Officer looking through a small window and laughing ?
Again, as i have stated before, SAW is a movie that contains several above average qualities when it comes to the technical aspects.
Ofcourse, as always, hypocritical moral knights as yourself never had any eye for detecting good quality work.

Thanks for the cinema appreciation lesson, but I am not attacking the film. I am pointing out the errors in your very strange conclusion that the film promotes the "respect-life" principle, and also that the killer made the one girl appreciate that life is precious.

NO I AM NOT.
You should know by now why i give this answer.

Yeah, you're backpedaling frantically.

I mentioned the "quotes" because it clearly demonstrates that i was referring to the killer talking, not good ol' marlon.

There's nothing clear about any quotes, Marlon. When people quote someone they put quotation marks around it. If you shift to explaining anyone's perspective but your own you indicate in some way shape or form, that you're doing this. To suddenly shift to someone else's perspective without doing this would just be extremely weird.

 

[marlon]

There's nothing clear about any quotes, Marlon. When people quote someone they put quotation marks around it. If you shift to explaining anyone's perspective but your own you indicate in some way shape or form, that you're doing this. To suddenly shift to someone else's perspective without doing this would just be extremely weird.

Please, don't do that. I clearly stated that what i said is not my personal opinion, there is no discussion about that. Besides, when someone makes a point on the technical aspect of filmmaking, please take the effort of responding in a polite and mature manner. Just state whether you agree or not and why.

So but, apart from your many misinterpretations, are you saying that the content of SAW does not bother you ? I am , for clarity's sake, referring to the line of reasoning of the killer.

marlon

 

[Curious3141]

I love horror movies and slasher flicks. Doesn't mean I condone that sort of behaviour in real life. I think Cronxeh (especially) and Gale were wrong in making a snap judgement about the sort of people that find horror movies entertaining.

Relax, it's just a movie people. Violence is a part of life, and being entertained by fictional depictions of it doesn't mean you're any less a human being. Stopping movies like these being made (along with books, video games, the whole shebang) really isn't going to make society any less violent.

Takashi Miike, one of my favorite film-makers, makes movies with the most shocking and outrageous violence. Yet his movies have layers of complexity and metaphors worthy of Kubrick himself. "Mindless drones" (or whatever the epithet flung at us horror fans was) will not be able to truly appreciate Miike's films.

OK, now I must go and see the original Saw, Saw II and the upcoming Hostel.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Please, don't do that.

Please don't do what? Please don't point out your inconsistancies?

I clearly stated that what i said is not my personal opinion, there is no discussion about that.

You clearly tried to divorce yourself from your previous remarks.

Besides, when someone makes a point on the technical aspect of filmmaking, please take the effort of responding in a polite and mature manner. Just state whether you agree or not and why.

Marlon, if you would like a polite discussion of the technical aspect of film making, or anything, don't include insults when you raise the subject:

Ofcourse, as always, hypocritical moral knights as yourself never had any eye for detecting good quality work.

And after you have insulted someone like that don't lecture them on being polite and mature unless you want to look hypocritical.

So but, apart from your many misinterpretations, are you saying that the content of SAW does not bother you ? I am , for clarity's sake, referring to the line of reasoning of the killer.

Well, Marlon, I might discuss it but there is some confusion in my mind now as to whether you are asking this question or if you have slipped into the killers perspective. Is that something you can control, or has it been a problem for you?

 

[Monique]

Catfight Alert!

 

[marlon]

Please don't do what? Please don't point out your inconsistancies?

No no, please don't mask your misinterpretations.

Marlon, if you would like a polite discussion of the technical aspect of film aking, or anything, don't include insults when you raise the subject:

I have asked you two specific questions in my last two post directed to you. A first kinda moral dilemma of the German officer and the gass chamber. Second, a question on the depiction of the content in SAW. Both questions were dodged by you. Why won't you answer my questions ?

Marlon, I might discuss it but there is some confusion in my mind now as to whether you are asking this question or if you have slipped into the killers perspective. Is that something you can control, or has it been a problem for you?

That's a rather lame excuse for not answering my questions wouldn't you say ? I humbly ask you to please stop this "selling of cheap morals and superfluous ethics" from your part. You are not getting anywhere with that, if you ever had a goal in mind.

I again ask you to answer my questions, otherwise there is no point in continuing this discussion since you are re-iterating (with no apparent success, i might say) the same stuff you are saying from post 1.

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

I love horror movies and slasher flicks. Doesn't mean I condone that sort of behaviour in real life. I think Cronxeh (especially) and Gale were wrong in making a snap judgement about the sort of people that find horror movies entertaining.

You are right. Just ignore these "i don't really know what to post but i'll post anyway" type of posts. In GD, they happen all the time. Luckily, most people consult this forum for the maths and the physics/engineering.

Relax, it's just a movie people. Violence is a part of life, and being entertained by fictional depictions of it doesn't mean you're any less a human being.

Correct again, but somehow some people here have very big difficulties grasping that thought.

Takashi Miike, one of my favorite film-makers, makes movies with the

Who is he, tell me something about him.

OK, now I must go and see the original Saw, Saw II and the upcoming Hostel.

You will certainly enjoy these flicks, especially SAW. I am really looking foreward to this Hostel movie. Greg gave an interesting link on it (IMDB) yesterday.

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

Catfight Alert!

CATFIGHT ?

That's so insulting.

marlon

 

[marlon]

OK, now I must go and see the original Saw, Saw II and the upcoming Hostel.

You probably know this already but just to be sure, you can watch the trailer of Hostel here on the IMDB website...It looks very impressive...

"There is a place where all your darkest sickest fantasies are possible"

ENJOY

regards
marlon

 

[Gale]

I love horror movies and slasher flicks. Doesn't mean I condone that sort of behaviour in real life. I think Cronxeh (especially) and Gale were wrong in making a snap judgement about the sort of people that find horror movies entertaining.
Relax, it's just a movie people. Violence is a part of life, and being entertained by fictional depictions of it doesn't mean you're any less a human being. Stopping movies like these being made (along with books, video games, the whole shebang) really isn't going to make society any less violent.
Takashi Miike, one of my favorite film-makers, makes movies with the most shocking and outrageous violence. Yet his movies have layers of complexity and metaphors worthy of Kubrick himself. "Mindless drones" (or whatever the epithet flung at us horror fans was) will not be able to truly appreciate Miike's films.
OK, now I must go and see the original Saw, Saw II and the upcoming Hostel.

It entirely depends on WHY you enjoy the films. I didn't appreciate SAW because the underlying plot was that evil prevails, and that the protaganist always lost, and lost in a violently brutal matter. Many horror flicks, whilst killing many people, actually promote opposite values, (ie Se7ev) and those movies i can appreciate. But in Saw it is violence for the sake of violence, and those who enjoy the movie, are not appreciating some underlying principle, but simply delighting in the destruction of the human body and psyche. Movies drive to engulf the viewer, and once entranced by the film you're subject to its message. Saw has no message, unless you side with the killer and agree with his "respect-life" principle... You watch the film, and all you get out of it is a lot of death and violence, without any other moral plotline, which makes for a bad movie in general, only worse as a horror flick because of the massive amounts of gore you're subjected to in the process.

Saw is BAD film making. Its depiction of muder and torture are not justified. There's nothing to enjoy or appreciate about the film, except for the violence, which i obviously DO NOT enjoy. some people do... i think they're sick. why does torture appeal to a person? fantasy or otherwise. i can appreciated horror films as far as they have something to offer beyond the "horrors" otherwise, they're just representations of the most disgusting aspects of human character, and appeal to those aspects in their viewers.

 

[Curious3141]

It entirely depends on WHY you enjoy the films. I didn't appreciate SAW because the underlying plot was that evil prevails, and that the protaganist always lost, and lost in a violently brutal matter. Many horror flicks, whilst killing many people, actually promote opposite values, (ie Se7ev) and those movies i can appreciate. But in Saw it is violence for the sake of violence, and those who enjoy the movie, are not appreciating some underlying principle, but simply delighting in the destruction of the human body and psyche. Movies drive to engulf the viewer, and once entranced by the film you're subject to its message. Saw has no message, unless you side with the killer and agree with his "respect-life" principle...

Straight upfront, I haven't seen SAW, so I don't know exactly what it's about. I'll take your word for it that it's got some sort of perverted sadist who wants to teach people to "respect life" by dismembering them. Close enough ?

Yes, that's not the most life affirming message, I agree. But judging by that, I find it utterly astounding that you choose to compare it unfavorably to Se7en ! Exactly where is it in Se7en that "good" won over "evil" ? That film too had a sadistic killer with a moral agenda trying to teach people through "example". In the end, the one symbol of beautiful innocence was slaughtered (and beheaded) and a good if not overly bright policeman succumbed to his evil masterplan, "becoming Wrath". The major message I got through Se7en was that what Det Somerset said at the end, quoting Hemingway. Paraphrasing, the world is a sh!tty place, but it's worth fighting for anyway. And indeed, the film exemplified the world being exactly that sort of twisted place. There is no evidence of good triumphing over evil here, just a message of resigned defiance against the inevitable corruption of the world. Hardly life affirming in itself.

Given that and the fact that you seem to approve of Se7en, I hardly think you're in a position to slam other films that may delight in this sort of sick twisted morality plays. SAW may not have glitzy production values or A-list stars like Se7en but the message may not be all that different.

You watch the film, and all you get out of it is a lot of death and violence, without any other moral plotline, which makes for a bad movie in general, only worse as a horror flick because of the massive amounts of gore you're subjected to in the process.

Some people (myself included) do like being shocked by gore and horror. That doesn't give you the right to judge us as bad people.

You're tangentially right about one thing : the context *is* important. If the movie shows disturbing scenes in a historical context, I don't find it at all titillating. Schindler's List was one of those movies that showed (not even graphically, but it was enough) man's inhumanity to man, and it left me drained and depressed. Because *that* wasn't made up, it wasn't a hypothetical. It really happened, and innocent people really died that way. If someone makes a movie showing the 9/11 disaster or the Tsunami victims in graphic detail, you can bet that both Marlon and I would be appalled and saddened.

Can you at least see what I'm driving at here ? Exploitation of real human tragedy will not work in horror movies, precisely because that is *real horror*. Movies should be regarded as escapism, and horror movies are good escapist fun to many of us. It's OK if you're not one of us (you obviously aren't), and you're free to air your views about such movies, but *DO NOT* presume to judge our characters based on our tastes in fiction. That's all I'm saying.

Saw is BAD film making. Its depiction of muder and torture are not justified. There's nothing to enjoy or appreciate about the film, except for the violence, which i obviously DO NOT enjoy. some people do... i think they're sick. why does torture appeal to a person? fantasy or otherwise. i can appreciated horror films as far as they have something to offer beyond the "horrors" otherwise, they're just representations of the most disgusting aspects of human character, and appeal to those aspects in their viewers.

Please see my point above regarding escapist entertainment, I think I've addressed this adequately. For the record, I don't ever want to see this scenario enacted in real life (just as I wouldn't want to read about a psychopathic Jason Vorhees offing naughty girls in a real life Camp Crystal) but you can bet I would find it entertaining to watch a fictional over-the-top fantasy depiction of such a thing. Again, you shouldn't judge the viewers on what they like.

 

[Curious3141]

Who is he, tell me something about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takashi_Miike

I've watched and thoroughly enjoyed "Ichi the Killer" and "Audition". The former launches into the red fun pretty much straightaway (but try and get the uncut version, there's a lot of stuff missing from the more kosher versions). The latter is a slower moving film at the start - in fact it seems like a slightly sad love story for the first three-quarters. The last quarter...well I won't ruin it for you.

 

[JamesU]

Yes, Aurdidtion was very good. The last twenty (or so?) Minutes were --> :

 

[Gale]

Straight upfront, I haven't seen SAW, so I don't know exactly what it's about. I'll take your word for it that it's got some sort of perverted sadist who wants to teach people to "respect life" by dismembering them. Close enough ?

No, that's the message marlon apparently got, though, now even he seems to be saying its not... the murders in Saw at first presume that sort of intention, but the end of the movie reveals the killing had nothing moral about it, the killer is merely a sadist with no intentions but to kill by ingenious methods. If the killer was just mental and thought his murders were teaching something, MAYBE the movie would be better. But as it stands, its just a guy killing for kicks, and anyone trying to stop him, failing.

Yes, that's not the most life affirming message, I agree. But judging by that, I find it utterly astounding that you choose to compare it unfavorably to Se7en ! Exactly where is it in Se7en that "good" won over "evil" ? That film too had a sadistic killer with a moral agenda trying to teach people through "example". In the end, the one symbol of beautiful innocence was slaughtered (and beheaded) and a good if not overly bright policeman succumbed to his evil masterplan, "becoming Wrath". The major message I got through Se7en was that what Det Somerset said at the end, quoting Hemingway. Paraphrasing, the world is a sh!tty place, but it's worth fighting for anyway. And indeed, the film exemplified the world being exactly that sort of twisted place. There is no evidence of good triumphing over evil here, just a message of resigned defiance against the inevitable corruption of the world. Hardly life affirming in itself.

"Its worth fighting for"... in this movie that IS good triumphing. The scene in the end leaves the viewer debating, whether he should avenge his wife and child, or not. Thats the moral issue. And it's a complex one, that could only truly be arrived at after all the gore in the flim. Thus the violence is justified, and we reach a very artistic and powerful conclusion. The idea that even through all the horrible scenes in the movie, and in the end which is so defeating, that its still worth fighting, is a very noble moral.

as i said, Saw is lacking anything of the sort.

Given that and the fact that you seem to approve of Se7en, I hardly think you're in a position to slam other films that may delight in this sort of sick twisted morality plays. SAW may not have glitzy production values or A-list stars like Se7en but the message may not be all that different.

yes, message was very different. Hence, i liked Se7en, i hated Saw . The actors and production costs hardly made a difference. the difference is in the values of the film. Of which, Saw had none. The movie upset me because of that. Whats the point of a film with no moral lessons or values? with no philosophical plotlines? why did the film makers create a film with so much gore? there was no noble reasons. They only wanted to showcase death and torture... and sadly, people enjoyed that.

Some people (myself included) do like being shocked by gore and horror. That doesn't give you the right to judge us as bad people.
You're tangentially right about one thing : the context *is* important. If the movie shows disturbing scenes in a historical context, I don't find it at all titillating. Schindler's List was one of those movies that showed (not even graphically, but it was enough) man's inhumanity to man, and it left me drained and depressed. Because *that* wasn't made up, it wasn't a hypothetical. It really happened, and innocent people really died that way. If someone makes a movie showing the 9/11 disaster or the Tsunami victims in graphic detail, you can bet that both Marlon and I would be appalled and saddened.
Can you at least see what I'm driving at here ? Exploitation of real human tragedy will not work in horror movies, precisely because that is *real horror*. Movies should be regarded as escapism, and horror movies are good escapist fun to many of us. It's OK if you're not one of us (you obviously aren't), and you're free to air your views about such movies, but *DO NOT* presume to judge our characters based on our tastes in fiction. That's all I'm saying.
Please see my point above regarding escapist entertainment, I think I've addressed this adequately. For the record, I don't ever want to see this scenario enacted in real life (just as I wouldn't want to read about a psychopathic Jason Vorhees offing naughty girls in a real life Camp Crystal) but you can bet I would find it entertaining to watch a fictional over-the-top fantasy depiction of such a thing. Again, you shouldn't judge the viewers on what they like.

i don't understand the rest of your argument. WHY do you enjoy being shocked by gore and horror? If its not ok to watch real life tragedies, why is ok to fantasize about them? Why is real life tragedy sick and saddening, and fantasy not? the same motives drive both, that's why it sickens me. even if you're only watching it on tv, you're ENJOYING watching people be tortured and dying. if it was socially acceptable, would you enjoy it in person too then? Don't you understand what escapism is? Its not just leaving the real world, its entering a fantasy world that you prefer to your own. why would you prefer to watch people die? I'm a big fan of escapism, but i read and watch love stories, stories about heroes, stories about a world BETTER than this one. that's what escapism is about. You wouldn't resort to escapism if you went someplace worse. So if a person is "escaping" to a world of sadism and violence... that worries me, in some cases, sickens me. I don't understand how you enjoy those films, especially after your argument.

 

[tribdog]

plus seven had Brad Pitt and he makes Gale quiver

 

[franznietzsche]

It entirely depends on WHY you enjoy the films. I didn't appreciate SAW because the underlying plot was that evil prevails, and that the protaganist always lost, and lost in a violently brutal matter.

Welcome to reality then.

Many horror flicks, whilst killing many people, actually promote opposite values, (ie Se7ev) and those movies i can appreciate. But in Saw it is violence for the sake of violence, and those who enjoy the movie, are not appreciating some underlying principle, but simply delighting in the destruction of the human body and psyche. Movies drive to engulf the viewer, and once entranced by the film you're subject to its message. Saw has no message, unless you side with the killer and agree with his "respect-life" principle... You watch the film, and all you get out of it is a lot of death and violence, without any other moral plotline, which makes for a bad movie in general, only worse as a horror flick because of the massive amounts of gore you're subjected to in the process.

And why does a movie have to preach a message to be good? Movies that preach are annoying, and so are people who do.

Saw is BAD film making. Its depiction of muder and torture are not justified.

That does not make it bad filmmaking. You are just trying to impose your narrow moral views on it. Art is not about plot. Its not about morals. Its not about some nice Disney-quality message that has us all holding hands at the end. Its about reaction. Its about evoking and manipulating an emotional response in the viewer. True art, be it Film, music, sculpture, or painting will communicate through emotion, by evoking an emotional response. Apparently Saw did a good job as far as you're concerned.

There's nothing to enjoy or appreciate about the film, except for the violence, which i obviously DO NOT enjoy.

I think you're taking a rather shallow view of both Saw, cinema, and art in general. Take Kill Bill Vol 1, another excessively violent film. Its fantastic. Not because of the violence. Because of how it communicates the story. Every part of the film is set up for one purpose: to communicate to the viewer. There isn't even a message to communicate, nor does there need to be.

some people do... i think they're sick.

Then call me a sick-twisted ****.

why does torture appeal to a person? fantasy or otherwise. i can appreciated horror films as far as they have something to offer beyond the "horrors" otherwise, they're just representations of the most disgusting aspects of human character, and appeal to those aspects in their viewers.

You don't understand the purpose of such a film. I imagine you would think that The Stranger is a disgusting book too? Or The Metamorphosis? I mean, cruelty, despair, and the belief that your only purpose in life is to die without some moral point must be disgusting right?

I agree with marlon completely. What made Saw good was not the violence for its own sake, its the use of violence, the cinematography, the lighting, the setup of each scene to communicate emotionally with the viewer, to evoke an emotional response.

 

[Curious3141]

i don't understand the rest of your argument. WHY do you enjoy being shocked by gore and horror? If its not ok to watch real life tragedies, why is ok to fantasize about them? Why is real life tragedy sick and saddening, and fantasy not?

Because real life is real life, fantasy is fantasy. Apparently, I'm able to make a distinction between them, and that seems to differentiate the two of us.

the same motives drive both, that's why it sickens me. even if you're only watching it on tv, you're ENJOYING watching people be tortured and dying.

I'm enjoying watching fictional representations being tortured and dying. I would not enjoy watching PEOPLE getting yadayada... You seem to be taking how *you* view the horror's assumed "motives" and projecting it onto me and other horror fans. Don't do that. Recognise that it is merely your own subjective impressions and preconceptions that you're talking about. To you, what's on the screen is apparenlty a lot more real than it is to a lot of us.

if it was socially acceptable, would you enjoy it in person too then?

No. I've seen crowds of "ordinary" people cheering, heckling, stoning and adding to the misery of condemned people sentenced to savage tortures and execution. I wouldn't be one of them, I don't consider myself one of the sheep in a mindless herd.

Interestingly, historical evidence shows that a lot of these brutal *real life* executions were ordered and carried out by the hyper-religious, hyper-conservative folk, of the same ilk that would censor "evil and perverse art", wring their pretty hands and ask "WHY" in a deceptively plaintive voice. Are you one of these hyper-religious people Gale ? Is that where all this is coming from ? Given the chance would you like to destroy all these films and forbid the creation of any more of the sort ?

Note that I'm not assuming anything about you, merely asking the question. I think it's a fair one given your stridency on the issue. But if your answer to my question is in the affirmative, then it's a fair bet that *you* might have been in that god-fearing crowd cheering a "witch" as she burned or a martyr as he was disembowelled. You just don't know it, and you may find it impossible to accept now, of course.

Pour your indignant outrage onto me now. But answer the question first.

 

[Evo]

Ok, enough everyone (this is directed at no one in particular). If you like slasher movies, fine. Some people are sensitive to this kind of explicit violence and I'd think people here would be understanding of that.

Let's try to be less aggressive when discussing topics that are understandably disturbing to some.