Saw....gag.

[flashgordonsape]

Is anyone else irritated by the sudden success of Saw? It's basically Seven's mentally retarded inbred cousin.

Also, I still wonder why Jigsaw deemed it necessary to shit in the toilet Adam searched for the key. Seriously.

[truepictures]

What deems it a success? The fact that there's a sequel being made about it? The movie is awful and a sequel does not make it good. Look at The Flintstones or for that matter Blade. I hate Blade. There are 3 Blades.

[Seedy Edgewick]

Y'know, there are lots of films I don't like. That doesn't make them awful.

There are lots of films I enjoy immensely. That doesn't make them great.

I get irritated at the self-centered viewpoint that, if someone doesn't like a film, then the film must suck. Not that there's anything wrong with not liking a film; everyone is entitled to their own point of view. It's the extrapolation of that viewpoint onto the film itself (and, by logical extension, anyone who DOES like the film) that I object to.

If you hate a film, hate it. Say why, even. But don't say the film is awful. Especially "Saw," because it is not an awful film by any stretch of the imagination. You can have problems with the plot, the coherence of the story, or the acting, but the film is the work of many talented people, and they didn't drop a duece onto the film-watching public.

Personally, I liked the flick. I liked the idea of Jigsaw's motivations, the story's structure, and even the ending. I thought Cary Elwes was very good, and that other guy who co-wrote the script was impressive as a newbie. Certain sequences were successful at inducing squirms in me, and when the full-on horror ramped up, I wasn't disappointed. That's my opinion of the film, and it ain't gonna change.

I would just like to see folks around here voice their opinions instead of passing judgement. Unless you're talking about Uwe Boll.

[Zen]

I quite liked saw myself, but the ending kicked me in the balls.

As for sudden success, didn't that film come out early last year?

[Rory L. Aronsky]

It came out October 29 last year. And "Saw II" is close enough to its predecessor...October 28, though both had/have Friday slots.

[AmaiStina]

Y'know, there are lots of films I don't like. That doesn't make them awful.

There are lots of films I enjoy immensely. That doesn't make them great.


i love you.

and, as ive found over the last decade, you can recognize a film's strengths or even that it effectively does one thing or another and still not like it b/c it just didnt grab you. or you feel neither hatred nor adoration.

[Terminal_Ny]

What irritates me most is the people who so right off deem this a rip of "Seven", and obviously don't know as much as they think they do when they make such a ridiculous comparison, and are just saying that because everyone else has.

Sure, because, um, there were NO such things as suspense thrillers with a mysterious killer before "Seven". Riiiight.

It's not so much the comparison as if "Seven" is the pen-ultimate of crime thrillers, but the immensely short attention span of audiences who can't find films that came out before "Seven", so they go to that because everyone else has.

And I just dont see the comparison. Two cops on the track of a mysterious serial killer? Hmm, there's NEVER been a movie like that before. And in Seven people weren't strapped to bathrooms forced to survive.

So, I'd love to hear any truly descriptive comparisons that would incline me to think that perhaps they're right, but until then, it's just more bitching from another person using "Seven" because everyone else has.

And for me, "Saw" was excellent in spite of its lapses of logic and a breath of fresh air for a genre which is being watered down by studios. It was pure horror with decent acting, excellent directing, and incredible gore.

And FYI, the success of "Saw" was hardly sudden. It was a slow and gradual troubling experience for the makers, it just happened to experience mainstream success and was expected to fail in the box office.

[Zen]

So, I'd love to hear any truly descriptive comparisons that would incline me to think that perhaps they're right,


This is not truly descriptive but...
I think the reason everyone seem to hung up on referring to Saw as a poor man's seven is due to the unique nature in which victims are dispatched in the two movies, as opposed to many other thrillers where the killer has one trademark and sticks with it (e.g. removing the spleen out of every victim and using it to fashion a decorative knick knack holder).

And even saying this has caused me to ponder about what other movies contained really unique, interesting, and varied methods of dispatching the victims. Anyone?

[Terminal_Ny]

This is not truly descriptive but...
I think the reason everyone seem to hung up on referring to Saw as a poor man's seven is due to the unique nature in which victims are dispatched in the two movies, as opposed to many other thrillers where the killer has one trademark and sticks with it (e.g. removing the spleen out of every victim and using it to fashion a decorative knick knack holder).

And even saying this has caused me to ponder about what other movies contained really unique, interesting, and varied methods of dispatching the victims. Anyone?
The Cube films.

[Mr B Natural]

Y'know, there are lots of films I don't like. That doesn't make them awful.

There are lots of films I enjoy immensely. That doesn't make them great.

I get irritated at the self-centered viewpoint that, if someone doesn't like a film, then the film must suck. Not that there's anything wrong with not liking a film; everyone is entitled to their own point of view. It's the extrapolation of that viewpoint onto the film itself (and, by logical extension, anyone who DOES like the film) that I object to.

I fail to see the argument. I know you respect others' point of view, but film is inherently subjective and the audience's experience is based on what they bring in with them.

I don't make the extrapolation that if someone says a film I love sucks that I must suck as well (I think that's what you're saying). I have never found one other person on this earth who liked or hated every film that I have, and I don't think I ever will. But I love to argue the finer points of any film, regardless of whether I can come to any agreement with the person I'm arguing with. Sometimes I like it even more if we disagree.

If you enjoy a film immensely, then it *is* great. Your criteria for a film may change depending on a number of factors, but all you have is your experience. And all we have as film lovers is the collective of all of our experiences. These define what a film is, nothing else. I know that the films exist physically, as a digital file or video or film strip. But since the experience is so subjective, then all you are left with is how you feel about it. So if you love or hate a film, or anyone else does, then that's all that matters.

[AmaiStina]

I fail to see the argument.

i dont think it's an argument necessarily. it's not like looking at a house from the front but with blue doors instead of red....it's more like looking at the same house w/ blue doors ...only from the backyard.



If you enjoy a film immensely, then it *is* great. Your criteria for a film may change depending on a number of factors, but all you have is your experience. And all we have as film lovers is the collective of all of our experiences. These define what a film is, nothing else. I know that the films exist physically, as a digital file or video or film strip. But since the experience is so subjective, then all you are left with is how you feel about it. So if you love or hate a film, or anyone else does, then that's all that matters.

ultimately, what counts the most may be whether or not a film gains one's middle fingers or one's fawning doe eyes*, but if Leslie assumes that the quality of a film's execution is solely dependent upon her opinion of it (with or without cogent explanation), Leslie's thinking limits herself to a world of good/bad based entirely upon her terms and tastes.

There's nothing wrong with Leslie's mentality, but allowing herself to understand the concept that just b/c she likes to wear polka dots with plaid, doesnt mean that polka dots with plaid is a good fashion statement enables her to stretch the boundaries of her cognition.

similarly, just b/c you find someone attractive, doesnt mean youre attracted to em. it's one thing if Leslie is simply unable to think someone is hot & not want to jump their bones, but if she realizes that she can think someone is drop-dead yummy but not want to consume that person, then Leslie is less constrained. She can look & not touch.


or in the case of a film, Leslie can see why "Lost in Translation" garnered critical and popular acclaim even if she doesnt feel it was all that and a bag of cheetos.


creators of art have the obligation to care nothing about who likes their work and why. creators of art have a right to deem their work great just b/c they like it or respected critics do (as well). consumers have an obligation to care nothing about whether or not they like or dislike what critics or popular culture encourages or discourages. but consumers only have the luxury of assuming that just b/c they like something, that something must inherently be great. if their private reaction to a work of art is the most important, then they shouldnt have to ...they wouldnt have to associate or equate their feelings with intrinsic value of any given artwork. wouldnt it be enough that they just enjoy (or not)?



*which some might assert is preferable to a film leaving you on the fence.

[Zen]

The Cube films.

Definitely. I don't know why I didn't think of that. I guess I was stuck thinking about the lone wolf serial killer type of film.

[Zen]

but if Leslie assumes that the quality of a film's execution is solely dependent upon her opinion of it (with or without cogent explanation), Leslie's thinking limits herself to a world of good/bad based entirely upon her terms and tastes.


Well put lady, very well put. But even if we take into consideration the terms and tastes of others, don't we generally make a decision of acceptance or rejection of those ideas?? (even subconciosly?)

And once that is done, aren't those terms or tastes adopted as our own?

And then (until the next time we are influenced) aren't we limiting ourselves to to a world of Good/Bad based soley on our terms and tastes?

And in the end wouldn't it just be easier to say that someone is just being closeminded?

And... oh forget it. I really don't have a clue where I am going with this or what I'm talking about.

I'm going to go with Saw just plain sucking until someone tells me it was good. I mean I'm going to go with Saw being an excellent film until someone tells me it was bad.

I'm just stirring up shit, and I don't have a valid point. So I will stop.

[eyeresist]

Definitely. I don't know why I didn't think of that. I guess I was stuck thinking about the lone wolf serial killer type of film.
Funny. The only one I could think of was Blofeld from the James Bond movies.

[Mr B Natural]

i dont think it's an argument necessarily.

Maybe I was too literal with the word, but I meant argument as a synonym for thesis or opinion.

Anyway, I think you give a lot of interesting reasons for why someone likes a film...I guess what I was trying to say is that even though you may be able to understand why someone else might like (or dislike) a film, its important not to let that overshadow your own opinion. Trusting your own instincts about a film is crucial to enjoying it and building a critical eye for films in general, whether you watch a film a week or a film a year.

I think some of your points may be splitting hairs (the attractive/attracted one in particular for me) but they are interesting.

I'm also not sure that the differences in creators/consumers is very practical, at least in my experience. I think it works well in theory, but speaking as someone who has created films I care very much about what people think about them. I realize that I need to make films for myself first and foremost (of course), but so often the filmmaker becomes so blind to the material (out of repetition, love for the material, or just by living with it for so long) that it becomes impossible for the filmmaker to have any idea of what they have created. They can never see the film though virgin eyes. If I hear the same problem from a lot of different people about a specific scene, I have learned to try and listen to the criticism. Because usually if a lot of people point out a specific problem, they are right.

but consumers only have the luxury of assuming that just b/c they like something, that something must inherently be great. if their private reaction to a work of art is the most important, then they shouldnt have to ...they wouldnt have to associate or equate their feelings with intrinsic value of any given artwork. wouldnt it be enough that they just enjoy (or not)?

I think I agree with this statement, but it makes my head spin & I can't be sure. Could you clarify it a bit?

[truepictures]

ultimately, what counts the most may be whether or not a film gains one's middle fingers or one's fawning doe eyes*, but if Leslie assumes that the quality of a film's execution is solely dependent upon her opinion of it (with or without cogent explanation), Leslie's thinking limits herself to a world of good/bad based entirely upon her terms and tastes.

I realize that this thread started from my post - when I said Saw sucked. But listen to me, I don't care if anyone else loved it or hated it, I was just stating an opinion. I know that there are people who will love it and I will not necessarily dislike them for loving that movie. It's just that I found it to be boring, ridiculous and unnecessary. If someone else thinks that Saw or Blade were great movies and should be revered, I probably will not care. I'll let them know why I didn't like the films and that would be the end of it.

My thinking does not limit me to good/bad. There are grey areas, there are some scenes in both films that grabbed my attention. But, overall, after everything was finished, like Mr. B Natural said - the experience had me drained. I hated being there in front of the screen watching these movies. I never wanted to repeat the experience again. And that's my opinion, someone may want to have a Saw & Blade marathon while sipping on daiquiris. That's great and fine too.

similarly, just b/c you find someone attractive, doesnt mean youre attracted to em. it's one thing if Leslie is simply unable to think someone is hot & not want to jump their bones, but if she realizes that she can think someone is drop-dead yummy but not want to consume that person, then Leslie is less constrained. She can look & not touch.


So what's this really all about?

[Pete Vonder Haar]

And that's my opinion, someone may want to have a Saw & Blade marathon while sipping on daiquiris.

What the hell have you got against daiquiris?

[truepictures]

What the hell have you got against daiquiris?

Nothing at all. I think you misunderstood my point.

I equate daiquiris to relaxation, enjoyment, and all these positive things.

I was saying that for some people drinking this fine beverage while watching Blade & Saw would present the ultimate experience in relaxation and entertainment. While for me, it would be another set of movies with the daiquiris ... and maybe even some black bean and cheese burritos with mole and hot sauce.

[Mr B Natural]

I was saying that for some people drinking this fine beverage while watching Blade & Saw would present the ultimate experience in relaxation and entertainment. While for me, it would be another set of movies with the daiquiris ... and maybe even some black bean and cheese burritos with mole and hot sauce.

Ooh, nice. Anything wrapped in a tortilla is worth eating. Especially with mole and hot sauce. :)

[Action Jackson]

I liked Saw. If you like it that's cool, and if you hate it that's cool as well.
To quote an ancient Chinese proverb "Whatever floats your boat" :)