Movies today have no suspense/pacing

[The Apatow Crew]

agreed!!!

I'm glad i'm not the only one then. Who gets kinda mad when all people do is mention TDK in something that has nothing to do with it. Its like you could be talking about my little ponies(don't ask me why) but someone will bring TDK up.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Sans SAW IV, the first SAW film was my least favorite of the series.

But it was clearly the best one.

There shouldn't have been any sequels, because after the first film the moral foundation of the series basically went to ****, and they became unpleasant, nihilistic garbage centered around gimmickry and shock value.

 

[The Dark Defender]

But it was clearly the best one.

There shouldn't have been any sequels, because after the first film the moral foundation of the series basically went to ****, and they became unpleasant, nihilistic garbage centered around gimmickry and shock value.

Hardly the case, as I recently discussed in the SAW thread.

The first film was the MOST centered on shock value, except maybe 4. Simply because it wasn't as gory didn't make it less about shock value.

New themes are covered in addition to the theme of the first film in each sequel, and the twists that culminate the films actually have something to say other than "hey look, he was on the floor the whole time!" which was ALL about shock value with no meaning.
As a huge fan of the series, the first film is easily the most overrated of the bunch because so many feel it's "clearly the best" when it's clearly the most shallow except for maybe one of the sequels.
None of the violence/trap sequenes in SAW have nearly the thematic weight of a man seeing the humanity in people that he's wanted dead for the past year of his life as he goes through an inner struggle to save them or not, watching a drug addict (who has far more depth in the sequels, especially the third film, than any character in the first film did) pull out a mans guts to find a key was hardly deeper than that.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

Well then get ready for some babbling about panties in a bunch and picture comments that have nothing to do with anything since that's how he shares his expertise of filmmaking with you.

Wolf Creek was another strong recent horror film that was very good with atmosphere and suspense; more in line with what the TCM remake should've been than the TCM remake was.

I liked Wolf Creek alot. Even though some thought it was gross and comparing it to torture stuff.

I've yet to see Rogue yet. the other movie the director made.

 

[Gilpesh]

New themes are covered in addition to the theme of the first film in each sequel, and the twists that culminate the films actually have something to say other than "hey look, he was on the floor the whole time!" which was ALL about shock value with no meaning.

Saw 2: HEY LOOK, HE WAS IN THE SAFE THE WHOLE TIME

Saw 3: HEY LOOK, HE SET ANOTHER TWO TRAPS

Saw 4: HEY LOOK, IT TAKES PLACE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE THIRD ONE

 

[The Dark Defender]

Rogue was good too, not as good as Wolf Creek, one of the few giant animal movies that can actually be taken seriously though.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Saw 2: HEY LOOK, HE WAS IN THE SAFE THE WHOLE TIME

Saw 3: HEY LOOK, HE SET ANOTHER TWO TRAPS

Saw 4: HEY LOOK, IT TAKES PLACE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE THIRD ONE

SAW II: Making a living out of ruining other peoples lives in order to advance your own will come back to haunt you, which was the entire point of the twist that connected Matthews to the people in the house, Amanda in particular.

SAW III: A lack of self-control is not only dangerous to you, but those closest to you, hence why a mans anger not only ruined his own life, but that of his wife and child, and why one woman's addiction and rage ended up destroying multiple lives.

SAW IV: You're right, hence why I said it was the only sequel that the first film is deeper than. Your SAW II and III observations are ridiculously short-sighted though.

SAW IV is the only installment of the series with a twist less relevant than that of the first film. John getting up off the floor meant nothing, changed nothing, had no impact on anything, it would've been the exact same story whether he were on the floor the whole time or not. It was pure shock value.
Eric framing the convicts in the house in SAW II, and Jeff and Amanda's choices causing the downfall of everyone in the story had plenty of impact on the story, and carry far more thematic weight than a man rising up off a bathroom floor; yet oddly enough, those that criticize those films for being exploitative meaningless trash think that the first film is more morally centered.

 

[Gilpesh]

Your SAW II and III observations are ridiculously short-sighted though.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

Rogue was good too, not as good as Wolf Creek, one of the few giant animal movies that can actually be taken seriously though.

I'll have to check it out then.

 

[The Dark Defender]

That might be funny if it actually made a little sense...however accusing me of being shortsighted when I just clearly offered insight to support my opinion rather than one sarcastic line (yet another example of someone that criticizes this series that can't come up with anything better than that, btw) does not.

 

[블라스]

 

[The Dark Defender]

If the last reply was to me, you're on my ignore list, so don't bother.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

Yeah, I think it was.

 

[El Santo]

If the last reply was to me, you're on my ignore list, so don't bother.

It's no problem, I'm happy to post it again:

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Hardly the case, as I recently discussed in the SAW thread.

The first film was the MOST centered on shock value, except maybe 4. Simply because it wasn't as gory didn't make it less about shock value.

New themes are covered in addition to the theme of the first film in each sequel, and the twists that culminate the films actually have something to say other than "hey look, he was on the floor the whole time!" which was ALL about shock value with no meaning.
As a huge fan of the series, the first film is easily the most overrated of the bunch because so many feel it's "clearly the best" when it's clearly the most shallow except for maybe one of the sequels.
None of the violence/trap sequenes in SAW have nearly the thematic weight of a man seeing the humanity in people that he's wanted dead for the past year of his life as he goes through an inner struggle to save them or not, watching a drug addict (who has far more depth in the sequels, especially the third film, than any character in the first film did) pull out a mans guts to find a key was hardly deeper than that.

Yeah, just cause the producers/directors/writers tried to pass off the sequels as having thematic weight, it doesn't mean there was any. Saw was entertaining, and it didn't leave the viewer feeling jerked around pointlessly, or depressed or just numb. The Saw series should've stopped pretending to have any real depth, because those pretensions are what make the sequels so dreadful. They hardly have the artistic merit that they seem to want to con people in to seeing. Seems like you fell for it.

 

[Bunker]

I partly blame increasingly stupid audiences that flock to see "horror" movies like Saw and Hostel.

Agreed.

 

[Gilpesh]

That might be funny if it actually made a little sense...however accusing me of being shortsighted when I just clearly offered insight to support my opinion rather than one sarcastic line (yet another example of someone that criticizes this series that can't come up with anything better than that, btw) does not.

Insight? You did just what I had done... or did you not say, "He was in the room the whole time!"

Oh wait, you did. But the first Saw is clearly the best, because it was new, different, and somewhat had a message about human nature.... the rest are now just cash in pictures with attempts at depth that look exactly like the last one. It's almost like the career of M. Night Shamalajsdghsdfgkmajsdnb.... the first one was good with a twist at the end, second one was alright with a twist at the end, and it just goes downhill from there.

 

[The Dark Defender]

I said that because as I pointed out, it had no other meaning! There's nothing else to say about it, as proven by even you whose trying to defend that film couldn't think of anything else.
The twists in the other films (sans IV) did have something to say and weren't just twists for the sake of twists.

It was new and different, that's nice, but that doesn't make it thematically deeper than the other installments.
I just clearly explained the thematic elements with examples, and you simply fire back with "no they're just cash ins!"

"Yeah, just cause the producers/directors/writers tried to pass off the sequels as having thematic weight, it doesn't mean there was any."

The fact that I can offer specific examples of it does, those that hate films simply choose to discard it, that doesn't mean that it's not there. SAW III clearly centers far more on the thematic elements than the first did, again, a man having to see the humanity in people he's demonized for the past year and go through a moral struggle over whether to save them or not > a woman gutting a guy to find a key.
Those pretenses are what elevate the films above the so called "torture porn" that their critics love to label them as.
The thematic elements are there, you simply ignore them and accuse the films of focusing entirely on the gore, which by ignoring the themes is exactly what you're doing.
So now this picture comment actually fits...

 

[Gilpesh]

The fact that the movies came out each year on halloween.... kinda points to them making the appearance of depth without actually trying to have depth in the movie, because they had no time to make the movies... which screams cash-ins/gimmick.

Oh, and the new and different comment... means that the first movie was actually trying to do something whereas the sequels are just copying the original formula set down by the first. And in copying that formula, they just throw a twist into the movie to make it seem deeper.

And the twist in the first Saw did have a meaning... no matter how much Jigsaw tried to look as though he was some great man on a mission to save humanity, he was just as messed up as the people he was 'saving'.

Also, I don't hate the films. I actually like the first one and the sequels are trash that are just for making money.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Being made quickly doesn't elminate the substance that's clearly onscreen that again, I've discussed with specific examples.

The twists didn't make it seem deeper, they made it deeper...in the case of III, the entire film, practically every scene, is thematically driven. Again, you're just ignoring it since that's the best counterpoint you can come up with is to discard the subtext so that you don't have to admitt that it's there and you can stick to your shallow criticisms about them "pretending to be deep."

Yes, the first film did have meaning, I never claimed it didn't, I said it was thematically the weakest with the most shallow twist of the series with the exception of four, I did not that the overall film was meaningless.

"Also, I don't hate the films. I actually like the first one and the sequels are trash that are just for making money."

Yeah, that's hating the films. You like one of the most shallow of the series and think the rest are terrible, which considering how very shortsighted your analysis of the films are is not at all surprising.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I said that because as I pointed out, it had no other meaning! There's nothing else to say about it, as proven by even you whose trying to defend that film couldn't think of anything else.
The twists in the other films (sans IV) did have something to say and weren't just twists for the sake of twists.

It was new and different, that's nice, but that doesn't make it thematically deeper than the other installments.
I just clearly explained the thematic elements with examples, and you simply fire back with "no they're just cash ins!"

"Yeah, just cause the producers/directors/writers tried to pass off the sequels as having thematic weight, it doesn't mean there was any."

The fact that I can offer specific examples of it does, those that hate films simply choose to discard it, that doesn't mean that it's not there. SAW III clearly centers far more on the thematic elements than the first did, again, a man having to see the humanity in people he's demonized for the past year and go through a moral struggle over whether to save them or not > a woman gutting a guy to find a key.
Those pretenses are what elevate the films above the so called "torture porn" that their critics love to label them as.
The thematic elements are there, you simply ignore them and accuse the films of focusing entirely on the gore, which by ignoring the themes is exactly what you're doing.
So now this picture comment actually fits...

Unfortunately films like Saw are not conducive to thematic weight or artistry. We're not talking about Fellini here. A recent horror movie that managed to have a bit of gore mixed in with poignancy and thematic weight was "Let the Right One In". That film is light years ahead of any of the Saw sequels. It was especially deplorable when the sequels basically decided to romanticize its killers, and destroyed any characters who would be considered remotely good through violent death.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Being made quickly doesn't elminate the substance that's clearly onscreen that again, I've discussed with specific examples.

The twists didn't make it seem deeper, they made it deeper...in the case of III, the entire film, practically every scene, is thematically driven. Again, you're just ignoring it since that's the best counterpoint you can come up with is to discard the subtext so that you don't have to admitt that it's there and you can stick to your shallow criticisms about them "pretending to be deep."

Yes, the first film did have meaning, I never claimed it didn't, I said it was thematically the weakest with the most shallow twist of the series with the exception of four, I did not that the overall film was meaningless.

"Also, I don't hate the films. I actually like the first one and the sequels are trash that are just for making money."

Yeah, that's hating the films. You like one of the most shallow of the series and think the rest are terrible, which considering how very shortsighted your analysis of the films are is not at all surprising.

You're attributing depth where there is none. Any genuine exploration of the human condition (which the first Saw did...sort of) is basically lost beneath the series' obsession with traps and twists.

 

[The Dark Defender]

"Unfortunately films like Saw are not conducive to thematic weight or artistry."

Which demonstartes my point that people that lambast these films often do so based on preconceived notions. Many people automatically go into horror films, especially sequels under the idea that these types of just can't have substance because they aren't "that type of movie," which is not true at all.

Any kind of film can have thematic weight, a horror sequel can have it as a much as a drama can, and the SAW films, sequels included do. That's the main reason I and most of the major fans love the series. If all I were interested in were interesting ways to watch people die to the hands of gimmicky murderers, there are plenty of other films that I would love just as much as SAW.

The first three films have people that are very flawed dying at the hands of Jigsaw and John and Amanda's deaths feel tragic; the second trilogy is doing the opposite of that. Hoffman is being set up as more of a heel, and the subjects are less and less flawed. The films glorify Jigsaws work less and less as the series is progressing.

 

[The Dark Defender]

You're attributing depth where there is none. Any genuine exploration of the human condition (which the first Saw did...sort of) is basically lost beneath the series' obsession with traps and twists.

Actually, I'm attributing depth where there is plenty and offering specific examples, you're ignoring them and saying there is none.
The traps and twists are a means to an end, they are tools to help convey the themes. I really don't care for the trap sequences that have no symbolic meaning or specific relevance to the victim (watching a prostitute get her wrists slashed or a guy get shot in the eye in SAW II did nothing for me, and I've already stated that I didn't care all that much for SAW's end twist because of how vapid it was). I only care about the traps and twists when they help convey the themes.

 

[Gilpesh]

You like one of the most shallow of the series and think the rest are terrible, which considering how very shortsighted your analysis of the films are is not at all surprising.

You understand... that's your judgment of the first one, right?

Especially when you don't even look into the first one's ending.... you called it "He was in the room the whole time!". If anything it says something about Jigsaw being a complete and total psycho and not actually the savior he is playing by putting these people into traps. Which would then take the depth out of the sequels that glorify him over and over as some sort of twisted prophet.