Saw III Poster (NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH)

Oh my God! Yet another thread in one day that dosen't have the words "Blu-Ray", "HD (anything)", "Toshiba", "Sony" or "1080i"! Well Rodger, at least you posted something about a "movie", which seems to be a real rare topic around here these days.

I can't wait to see Saw III. I loved Saw and thought Saw II was a decent sequel.

Tim,

Don't get too excited, bruceames will find someway to weave high def into this post.

All the same, Saw kind of ruined the whole trilogy for me, I can't respect the films like I guess I should. Am I the only one that laughed at Saw?

Cary Elwes trying to sob, that was worthy of AFI's list of comedies alone!

Also, I don't like horror films, they never seem to move beyond what I can make in my basement with a cheap DV camcorder. Danny Glover did star in one of my movies though, he's working for cheap now;).

Elwes exit in Saw was hilarious, but the rest of the movie, and Saw 2 were a lot of over-the-rop, grizzly fun, and I'm looking forward to seeing #3. And I echo Tim's "Amen" to a non-HD thread - maybe there will be something worth reading on this message board again. Doubtful though, with the Blu-Ray release, but hopefully.

I truly don't understand this type of bullshit.

And it's not because I'm squeamish or religious or Philistinistic or anything like that.

What is the artistic value of a film like this?

It makes no sense.

Anyone who says this stuff is awesome needs to get a girlfriend.

And start reading books at the library.

I want someone to reply to my post who thinks this crap is "awesome", and explain to me why it is "awesome".

It's not really about scares for me, it's about doing something different. I have a fascination, not with death, but with effects, including effects make-up, and the Saw movies are fantastic in that sense. Aside from this, as I said, I like something different, and the Saw movies take the horror/slasher movie to a new level, and actually have a positive message (though, I doubt that's why they are successful). The story is different, and the villain has a design and can think intelligently. I don't understand why they keep making Halloween and Jason movies, because they haven't done anything unique or had anything to say in years (and in the case of Friday the 13th, it never had anything to say). If you don't like horror, I can appreciate that, but there are certainly movies deserving of a lot more criticism, that are much more poorly made. And Micheal, making personal attacks at people you don't know just makes you look like a raving nutcase - if you have a point, make it intelligently, and back it up.

Micheal,

I'm not one who finds the whole blood-and-gore thing awesome. In fact, I find a lot of it pointless unless it's in a war movie where it is actually trying to make a point. I have a hard time with the horror genre in the first place. Most of it is so clichéd and void of anything fresh and original. To me the best horror films are the ones that show little blood and mess with a persons mind more than anything (less is more theory). Kind of like in "Alien" where we don't see the creature as much but our mind can visualize how horrific it can be.

Many people attract to this genre because as humans we are all attracted to death, especially when it is done to some one else. Some of us might think of it as a rollercoaster ride and some might even find it fascinating. If you don't believe me, just look at your daily news media. Most news you read or see is generally about someone else’s pain or death, or at least something very tragic and horrific. There are plenty of crime shows and court TV shows based purely on violence similar to what you might see in the "Saw" films. Face it; many people find death fascinating thus the horror genre is something a few might find "awesome". As for me, you can count me in as one of the "Squeamish". :o

Tim ;)

Michael_B2004,

Well, the Saw movies are horror movies and some people enjoy being frightened. The reason why these type of movies are as gory as they are now is because of the shock value, which is what audiences will remember - makes the film seem more real, which makes it scarier. Its not like all people who like this stuff have a fetish for it or anything like that. They just enjoy being scared.

Saw and Saw II, to me, were one of the best horror films of their years (2004/2005) and it's not because of the gore. It's because both films talk about taking your life for granted. Jigsaw, the villain, doesn't want his victims to die. He wants them to escape and get out of his traps so that they can become better people. Also, the second film had a powerful ending.

Johnson316,

The filmmakers of Saw III said that the second film was a gorefest but not scary and that they wanted to bring back the scare factor into the film. I guess we'll see how well they do. This film is also being written by the guys who wrote the first film (Saw II was written mostly by Darren Lynn Bousman who was actually writing a film called "The Desperate," which was rewritten to become the sequel).

-roger

Maybe it's because it doesn't look real to me, but that did little for me. The first movie was great; the second was an adaquite sequel. I'm sure the third be along the same lines as the second. And I'm sure we'll be saying the same about the fourth and the fifth.

I really wouldn't say that was a personal attack by Michael. It was more of a vented, frustrated rant on anyone who finds the whole blood-and-gore thing awesome. I can understand his feelings because it does seem a little creepy when an individual is obsessed by this type of genre. I know I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who constantly raved about how cool it was to watch some teenager get hacked to bits and pieces on the big screen. Yeah . . . kind of creepy.

I dare not call it "art" because I have to agree that there is no poetic form to it that comes close to relating it to art. Yes, art can show many visuals of tragedy and darkness, but watching some guy hack his leg off with a saw is not art, it's freaking gross! Then again my opinion comes down to one man's trash is another man's treasure, eh?

Tim (ah, come on. shake hands now and be friends) :D

"Anyone who says this stuff is awesome needs to get a girlfriend.

And start reading books at the library."

Yeah, that's an intelligent comment, not meant to be a personal attack against those who like the movies. Right.

The fact is "art", whether you consider Saw art or not (I could see a valid point to either side) is subjective, and there is widely respected "art" that I consider offensive. I went to the Guggenheim and saw a video of a guy wearing a mask, beating himself up. I find that offensive, and yet there it is, in one of the most respected art galleries in the world. The fact is, you absolutely have the right to be offended by Saw, and if you are, don't see it. Even tell people why, if you wish. But you don't have to basically say that anyone who doesn't see the world the same way as you is therefore a lesser person.

interplanetaryspy,

Some of my comments were over-generalized, I will admit. But just because it was an over-generalized statement doesn't mean it's untrue. "Girlfriend" is a loaded statement anyway. There is a specific demographic for this type of movie, and studio execs know it. Same reason why they have Hot-Topic stores in the malls. Perhaps I said it because I thought it could spark a lively debate.

Either way, I am extending my hand for a shakin' in apology to all who were offended.

Now, we should all sing that Turtles' song So Happy Together.

- Miguel

So, exactly what are the rules that make some films art, and some not? For example, explain to me how Schindler's List, which shows graphic and brutal violence, is art, and Saw isn't. And, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not claiming that Saw is equal in quality to Schindler's List - I'm just bringing this up for argument, since there seems to be some set of objective rules that makes a person beating their own face in art (see my earlier post), and Saw not. Please explain - I seem to have missed the memo.

Yes, but as Josh pointed out, art also has rules to follow in order for something to be categorized as art. I think the real question is, do we really need to refer to violent gore in films such as "saw", "Nightmare on Elm Street" or any of the "Halloween" movies as art? Is watching people being tormented, slain or mutilated on the big screen really art? Again, art does have rules and they are a fine-line of rules that play on people’s perception and acceptance of the world around them. I think it's safe to say that most the population in the world probably finds gore too squeamish for them and possibly even offensive. And this is easy to measure because the horror genre is not that big and has been loosing its audience for the past decade. "Saw" only grossed 55mil. in its total box office sales (Superman Returns did that over a weekend) which tells me it's only popular to a small crowd of die hard fans. Therefore, it's a safe bet that it would be referred to as bad art or not art at all.

Art does have a different set of rule all together as it relies on what people accept, thus the rules of art can change over time. Music, however, is a different ball game altogether as it can be broken down into far more technical rules. Rap, for example, is NOT music since it only relies on a base core and it has no melody, therefore it is not music. Music needs to have rhythm and melody combined in order to call it music. Art, on the other hand, is simply objective to a personal opinion over the mass of others. In other words, the popular vote wins.

Tim ;) :p :@ :) :x

I can certainly agree, Josh, that COULD be the case. If you think people who watch horror movies are going to all walk into a school and shoot everyone, that's absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that watching violence will make you any more likely to "take lives". It's a freakin' movie! I absolutely agree that, if a person is pre-disposed to it, was not instilled with strong moral values, and a clear distinction between reality and fiction, and was sufficiently mentally unstable, then watching an endless stream of violent movies could have an impact on such a person, in terms of their likelihood to commit a violent act. Otherwise, for the vast majority of the population, it's just a movie. And visual art, such as would be displayed in a museum, is simply one form of "art". Filmmaking is another. You may not like one film, or like one piece of art - you may find them offensive and depraved - but because you don't like it, doesn't make it cease to be art. It would then just be bad art.

Ok, I'll throw my two cents in here.

Yes, art is subjective, but, there are rules for it to be "good" art. Otherwise, anything is art, just because one person says it is. There is some science in art, as well as psychology. I'm not pulling this out of the sky, I can say this with some authority as an aspiring artist, in school currently. However, I think Tim makes a very good point. People that are "obsessed" with crimes against humanity, cruelty, or outright sadistic preoccupation, remind me of such "horrific" realities as the Columbine massacre, or even the Holocaust. Both of those situations dealt with people that had a complete disregard for human life.

Interplanetaryspy also makes a very valid point that just becuase a piece of art is displayed in a popular museum, does not mean it's not offensive, or that it's even good artwork. Museums have boards or people that solely decide whether a piece will be displayed in their museums. And, oddly enough the reasons shocking or disturbing art is displayed probably has similar reasons as what Tim mentioned earlier in this thread about shock value being used in the news media. If a piece of artwork is "shocking", then people will talk about it, and it will bring clientele and possibly popularity to the museum. Unfortunately, this falls back on the ever growing problem of edacity over ethics.

In my opinion, if you're describing atrocities against living creatures (whether real or depicted) as "awesome" or anything else synonymous to the acts I've described above as being a positive experience, you might just be a few short steps away from taking some lives yourself. If you desensitize yourself to such acts, they will no longer be shocking to you, and as such will affect the way(s) in which you act and react in and to the world around you.



- Josh

I think the main reason I posted on this board was because this is just another example of homogenization and consumerism.

Osama Bin Laden could have saved us all. He could have saved the human race in the 21st century. Bin Laden saw western society, and he was profoundly disgusted with it. I can totally agree with Osama at that level. Teenage girls, like 13 or 14, having sex on the Internet. Pat Robertson calling himself a "Christian". George W. Bush being the President. People driving Hummers. Hurricane Katrina. And on and on and on.

Movies like "SAW III" are just another part of it. It renews a sense of consumerism, social passiveness, desensitization about violence. Don’t get me wrong though, you shouldn’t censor this crap. The First Amendment is the most important valve in our country. Take that away, and we’re in trouble big time.

I think that the only way for America to fully wake up is to have a big economic depression. It might help our culture, and restore a sense of morality and values and compassion.

Conrad can say it much better than me:

“I found myself back in the sepulchral city resenting the sight of people hurrying through the streets to filch a little money from each other, to devour their infamous cookery, to gulp their unwholesome beer, to dream their insignificant and silly dreams. They trespassed upon my thoughts. They were intruders whose knowledge of life was to me an irritating pretense, because I felt so sure they could not possibly know the things I knew. Their bearing, which was simply the bearing of commonplace individuals going about their business in the assurance of perfect safety, was offensive to me like the outrageous flauntings of folly in the face of a danger it is unable to comprehend. Their faces, so full of stupid importance.”

"Schindler's List" is a recognition of the desperate need for human compassion in the world. When a film like "Schindler's List" comes along, it restores hope. It made the Holocaust personal instead of statistical. It made people think and cry and have nightmares. We need more nightmares about the Holocaust and other such atrocities. We need more people to lose their faith in God. We need more people to forget about heaven and hell and all of that.

"Saw III" doesn't look very important. It looks like crap. But whatever, we can all be consumers and go see this movie on Halloween and dress up like an Nazi-ax-murderer and eat lots of candy. Whatever floats yer boat.

I think this is just another example that illustrates my point - equating seeing Saw three with dressing like a Nazi or an axe murderer? Ridiculous. The point is that it is a movie, and, whether you like it or not, and since someone still hasn't posted those commandments of what is and isn't art, you have to accept that it is someone's artistic vision. I have absolutely no problem with people hating Saw, or being offended by it - that is perfectly fair and understandable. It's this unfounded and ridiculous generalizations and associations that I have a problem with. "I don't like it, so it's not art.", "If you watch the movie, you can't read and don't have a girlfriend.", "If you like Saw, you will probably also dress like a Nazi for Halloween." Absolutely ridiculous. Feel free to hate or love whatever you want - if you love Bin Laden and hate Saw... well, that's just weird... but you have that right. It's important in a free society with free speech to accept the fact that you take the good with the bad. There are a lot better things to be offended by. There are so many world issues that no one is speaking up about, or outraged for, but we need to stop making Saw movies? Saw is not the problem with society.

Actually, what I said was (and I even put it in quotations) for it to be GOOD art, it has to follow certain rules. This has nothing to do with the medium on which it's displayed, nor did I say that it would cease to be art. There are certain rules like composition, balance, color (and it's deliberate use), rhythm, unity, use of proportion, emphais and focal point, and probably most importantly, preparation that are key in ANY art form. And that's just scraping the surface! That's only a few of the main points in how a good piece of art (no matter if it's static, sculpture, film, a comic routine, a song, or what have you) is presented. All of these simple rules can be applied to ANY art form to create "good" (there's that key word again) art.

Conversely, for anything to be considered art is subjective, and subject to, public approval. If the majority of people think it's crap (regardless of your personal feelings about a given piece) it's crap. Popularity and popularity alone can make or break an artist. If people like it, they'll buy it, plain and simple. If they like it a lot, then it will be worth a lot. As Tim wrote, the horror genre has been dwindling for some time now, and if the total take on these films (on average) is less than most other types of films do in ONE weekend, we'll only see more and more crap, because the "hack" or fresh film students will be the only ones writing and directing them.

Whether or not a person is predisposed to kill or not, has little to do with my comment. Again, I wrote that it has an "affect" on people, and desensitises them whether they realize it or not.

By the way, saying "it's just a movie" (implying that it has no affect) is just as ludicrous as saying movies are the root of all evil.... just a thought.



- Josh ;)

interplanetaryspy,

I think there's two Michael's using this post. There's the Michael who posted before this one and then there's me. Sorry for any confusion.

I agree with many of your opinions on the film, particularly #'s 2 and 4. I loved Saw 1 and 2 so you're preaching to the choir. The impression I got from one of your previous posts was that a high grossing movie does not make it a good one. I agree with that but if I misinterpreted it I apologize.

Michael

interplanetaryspy,

"There is the "artsy" type of person, who will never appreciate any mainstream movie, because they feel it is below them, and that it isn't what they believe is art, and therefore has no value. I hate that superficial, narrow-minded approach to things. These are the people that go into every big-budget movie only to find ways to criticize it. This is the type of person you are starting to strike me as, Michael."

I would have to disagree with that statement, which is generalized to some degree. Things aren't as black and white, right and left, north and south as they appear to be, in my opinion.

It seems to mean that you like to use pedestrian terms and pedestrian definitions, which makes it hard to discuss topics like this.

Would you consider Whitman to be mainstream? I would. Would you consider Kerouac to be mainstream? I would. Would you consider Bob Dylan to be mainstream? I would. Would you consider Scorsese to be mainstream? I would. All of these artists are mainstream, yet I appreciate their work.

How the hell do you define "mainstream"? Dictionary.com defines it as: "Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group." There's a lot of different societies and a lot of different groups out there in the world. Just because its mainstream doesn't mean it is conformist or dis-honest or lacking in candor or not being true to one's own vibrations and meditations.

Here is what I said: "I, personally, define/appreciate art or anything creative by asking myself two questions: 1) is it honest and 2) did it break-through any existing artistic/creative form? Another way I look at art as being somekind of telepathic thing that uses another persons' subjectivity i.e. imagination, vision, style, etc. and personal experiences to connect with another person, something that other people can identify with sexually, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, etc. "

Now I can't seem to understand how that could be described as "superficial, narrow-minded"? I would say that you're view of "Some movies (most movies, in fact) are escapist entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that" to be a "superficial, narrow-minded" statement.

"it means that I approach movies from the perspective of wanting to like them and wanting to be entertained, not from the perspective of someone trying to find ways to express their superiority over others for having real taste."

I've never said that I am better than someone else because of my taste in art. I did say that anyone who thinks purely cruel, violent, senseless stuff like "SAW" is awesome needs to get a girlfriend and start reading books at the library. And I said that as a SUGGESTION, mainly because I think that girls (teenaged) are really freakin' hot and I personally think that sex is a lot of fun, and I think that it is more fun than watching "SAW" movies. Maybe I said that because I am a horny teenager or something, but personally I think having sex is more fun than gory, consumer-brainwash movies like "SAW". My biggest influences are Whitman and Kerouac and Dylan. They were some of the leading advocates AGAINST snobbery in "art"; they sought to make it mainstream, without "selling-out" their own style and artistic aesthetic. I'd like to meet a REAL snob who thinks that Bob Dylan is the greatest musician that ever-lived. That might be interesting, because a lot of people, people that you might say are "snobs", absolutely ADORE Bob Dylan. In fact, most people who you might say are "snobs" completely hate Bob Dylan, mainly because of his voice.

I'm starting to feel that this is like playing a semantics tennis game without a net.

-Miguel (I'm 1/2 CUBAN, which is kinda reflected in my name. Go Che! hahaha.)

- EXTERNAL LINK ->

I guess sarcarsm is lost on you, Michael. Anyway, my comment was directed at Tim, who brought in the amount of money grossed by Saw as an argument that it is generally considered bad. There is the "artsy" type of person, who will never appreciate any mainstream movie, because they feel it is below them, and that it isn't what they believe is art, and therefore has no value. I hate that superficial, narrow-minded approach to things. These are the people that go into every big-budget movie only to find ways to criticize it. This is the type of person you are starting to strike me as, Michael. Because you are an aspiring artist, doesn't make you more knowledgeable, or superior to anyone. And because you know the principles of art, doesn't even make you a good artist. I'll tell you why I enjoy the Saw movies:

1) I don't go to movies simply to be "moved". Why does every movie have to move me? Why does every movie have to affect me spiritually? Some movies (most movies, in fact) are escapist entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that.

2) Saw was original. You may not like it, you may be offended by it, but the plot was original - probably one of the most original horror movie storylines in many years.

3) Saw has good practical effects, and I find it very interesting to watch how people who are experts in their fields (I'd even call them artists) can create realistic looking effects in a movie, that cause a reaction in the audience.

4) I like a movie that puts me as a viewer in a situation that I have not been in before, because it keeps me engaged. I like putting myself in the place of the main characters, and reacting to the situations, even if they are frightening.

5) I'm not pretentious, and can appreciate movies for various reasons, whether they be visually interesting (Natural Born Killers - also very violent), deeply moving (Hotel Rwanda), or for a brainless adrenaline rush (The Rock), and I think that simply means that I am a real movie fan. Does that mean I like everything? Does that mean I'm never offended by a movie? Absolutely not, but it means that I approach movies from the perspective of wanting to like them and wanting to be entertained, not from the perspective of someone trying to find ways to express their superiority over others for having real taste.

It's good to see Josh on the boards again. I haven't seen him in awhile.

Let me explain why I like the Saw movies. I approach some movies as if I were in certain positions. I watch the Saw movies thinking, what if I were in that position, and based on that I enjoy those movies. I'm not say you have to approach it the same way.

Different people bring different backgrounds and preconceptions with them when they watch movies. I can respect everyones opinion about why they like or dislike certain movies.

In regards to this whole "Art" discussion let me say the following. I agree with interplanetaryspy's comments about popularity dictating what is art. Da Vinci could have pinched one off on a canvas and it would have fetched millions, that doesn't mean its good art.

Michael

I, personally, define/appreciate art or anything creative by asking myself two questions:
1) is it honest and 2) did it break-through any existing artistic/creative form?

Another way I look at art as being somekind of telepathic thing that uses another persons' subjectivity i.e. imagination, vision, style, etc. and personal experiences to connect with another person, something that other people can identify with sexually, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, etc.

When people have that discussion of whether a film that was based on a book was better than the original text, people usually say, the book was wayyy better than the movie. Why? It's usually because the book was more thought-out, the author more in-tuned with his craft, and can convey something deeper than just some crappy Hollywood blood guts sex booze etc. movie looking to make a buck.

Generally, I think that people don't even view films as being worthy of being called "ART".

If you've ever had that conversation of whether the book is better than the film, doesn't it seem perfectly plausible to have that same conversation with another form of art? Example: A folk song ("Only a Pawn In Their Game) and a film ("To Kill A Mockingbird") or say, a sculpture and a poem ("Ode to a Grecian Urn").

So, interplanetaryspy or anyone else who likes these "Saw" movies, try to explain WHY these movies are so great, WHY you were moved by these movies, WHY you think they are so swell.

"Armaggedon is good art (made hundreds of millions of dollars), and a movie like Water is bad art. I agree whole-heartedly."

In my opinion, that's one of the reasons why we have such bad "art"; people putting a value on art based on the amount of dollars it brings in. Sorry, but that is a very pedestrian view of things. That way of looking at art makes my skin crawl. I totally disagree.

Violence comes in many degrees and is therefore hard to distinguish what part of it can be considered art or not. It's all a matter of acceptance by the popular majority. War movies certainly have violence, but what would a was movie be without it? You have to have violence in a war film in order to show the truth behind the story. I'm not saying violence in a war film can be considered art but ti's better that we see it in order to understand the horrors of war. Again, and what you should ask yourself is a simple question; is seeing an axe driven through someones skull art?

I get it than - since it's about popularity as to whether or not something is good art, than Armaggedon is good art (made hundreds of millions of dollars), and a movie like Water is bad art. I agree whole-heartedly. And honestly, if you think a director like Michael Bay, for example, doesn't think about composition, color, emphasis, etc., that's ludicrous. Heck, I'm sure even Darren Lynn Bousman thinks about the composition, balance and color pallette in a shot, too. So, again, what makes it bad, is that you don't like it. Be realistic - you're not judging Saw based on the principals you've listed, you're judging it on your feelings about violence in movies, and therefore you perceive that the Saw movies are offensive. Artisitic principles have absolutely nothing to do with your argument, so why bring them into it, because unless you are familiar with all the principles of filmmaking, and have analysed the principles in Saw, that has nothing to do with anything. Stick to the issue - the violence bothers you, and that's why you consider it bad art.

Quite a few of the horror movies today seem to be pushing the envelope in terms of gore. Saw and Hostel are two good examples of that. I happen to like those movies though. I agree with you Tim that there doesn't need to be a lot of gore or violence in a good horror movie. Halloween is an excellent example of that.

Michael

Ah yes, video games are a whole new realm of violence all together. I would have to agree that I, too, do not care for the Grand Theft Auto violence as it does nothing for decent morals and it does nothing for the cultural development of a tempered society. Grand Theft Auto is just plain wrong! All it does is create a shock value in an attempt to desensitize criminal violence. It’s no more controversial than when “Carmageddon” for the PC years ago, and you all know where that ended up.

However, video games are as much of an escape as movies are. There is a certain degree of fun violence that you might get in, say, “Prince of Persia” or “Need for Speed”, but walking up to a driver in a car and blowing their brains out with a shotgun is really freaking sick. I really see no value in the game makers trying to simulate or make me feel like what it is to be an LA gansta’. No thanks, I really don’t care to see what it’s like to be the scum of the Earth. It really shows lack of imagination in my book.

I am with Tim on this. Horror movies have lost their originality in last decade or so. Older horror movies like Alien, Omen, Rosemary Baby, and Night of the living dead can to some extent be called as art. Most of these movies have relied solely on the terror factor to drive horror elements. Alien is a classic example of horror/terror movie where the viewer is continuously scared by the thought of an alien in the ship.

Coming to back to art. For me, art is something that -
1) has strong technical aspects (whatever medium it is), 2) good emotional content, 3) something that moves me 4) probably makes me think by inviting a discussion with myself or somebody else. Back to saw. Saw is solid in point -1 and to some extent point no -4. However, for me Saw fails miserably in points 2 and 3. This movie does not move me in any way. This is because of the weak script. The characters are underdeveloped. The main villain has no sympathies from me. More effort from writers on developing the main villain would have been good. Every death in Saw and Saw II reminds of X-files. More so, deaths in these movies also remind of deaths in Final Destination series. Both movies make you squeamish. Therefore, Saw movies are not original even with the twisted ending.

The art showing Jesus poked by spikes will move lot of people. When people see this type of image they immediately think about sacrifices made by Jesus and sufferings inflicted on Jesus. This gives it a meaning and therefore becomes an art. Saw on the other hand does move people emotionally.

After all, this is just an opinion ;)

--Ranjan:)

Some very famous pieces of art portray spikes being driven into Jesus. It's violent, and it's art. Is Saw art - in my opinion it is, because there are people involved with a clear vision, attempting to make an interesting and unique story (and I agree that not all elements of it are unique, though I certainly would never put Friday the 13th in the category of unique horror movies), employing principles of artistic design to create images that will cause a reaction in an audience. So, I guess the answer to your question is, yes. Of course, if it is something that you are offended by, I would completely understand that. Personally, and I'm not sure of the reason why exactly, violent movies don't usually offend me, but violent video games do. It makes me ill to watch someone play a game like Grant Theft Auto. Maybe it is just the fact that the player is actively participating in creating the violence.

You realize I also agree that a film that grosses a ton of money does not make it a great flick. My point about SAW only making 55mil total was to show that it is a diminishing audience. The horror genre does not have the audience it did just ten-years ago and it has been shrinking ever since. I don’t think it’s due to people not seeing these films as art, and I’m mainly talking about the mindless teen-slasher films. I think it’s due to most people realizing the lack of originality behind most of these films. How many times do we have to see a victim fumble for their keys in a car or the car won’t start or a cat that jumps out of nowhere to make the audience jump? Horror creators have been using the same tricks for years thinking they’ll work on a whole new set of teenagers when in fact they’re just digging their own grave. As I’ve said before, some of the best horror films show very little gore to frighten us. Fear of the unknown can be a powerful tool and has proven to make for some of the best films.

No, I’m not one of the elitist snob groupies that sit in local coffee house to snub my nose at mainstream films and call everyone a “sell out.” I’m like many people and enjoy a film for what it has to offer whether it is mainstream or art-house. I’m a person who feels that if the world were full of art snobs we’d all have very, very little to enjoy in the world. I have no problem with any artist selling out because I feel they deserve to make a lot of money for their hard work; plus I personally hate the term “sell out.”

I enjoyed SAW to a certain degree but I was not in love with it. It still has some of the same tricks I’ve seen in other horror-violence flicks even though it tried the cool plot twist. And if you know enough about the genre, even the plot twist was not all that original. I don’t know if I’d dare to call the movie fun, it was thrilling and intense at times, but certainly not fun. Would I call the overall look of the picture art? Yes. Would I call the violent gore art? No. Remember now, that’s just a subjective opinion of mine that I’m not willing to debate and it would be pointless to do so. All I’m saying is I’m one of those squeamish people and that’s it. I loved “Dawn of the Dead” because it kind of adds a sci-fi element to it but even in that film I found the gore a little stomach turning. Guess what? That’s just me folks. All I’m saying about SAW is it’s not anything I’ve never seen in the past i.e. “Texas Chain Saw”, “Scream”, “Friday the 13th”, etc. To me a lot of it is just pointless slasher gore and unconventional violence. I’m not saying these movies should never be made and I’m not out to ban them, I’m just saying I don’t find many of them enjoyable nor would I dare to call them artful films.

Now I feel that I’ve done my best to answer any questions that some of you may have of me. Yet nobody seems to want to answer the questions I have about art. I will ask again. is seeing an axe driven through someone’s skull art? -- or – Do we really need to refer to violent gore in films as art?

It is Miguel those comments were directed at. Sorry. And as for this whole discussion, there is no point anymore. Miguel, all you do is prove me right repeatedly that you as an artist feel that you are superior to everyone else. It shows clearly through your posts, and what's the point in discussing something with someone who will never listen to anyone else anyway, because they are all below them.

Bump

I have a girlfriend and i love this kinda stuff, the more horror movies the better. Halloween will always be the grandest of them all though, uh huh.

Wha ha! Ha ha ha ha!!!! >-:)