<p>Why do they keep making those SAW movies? Who is watching these? I don’t have a desire to see them, and don’t quite understand the point of them. Just by the name, they sound really gross. Aren’t they just a bunch of films about cutting people up?</p>
<p>Saw movies have a fan following among sadistic basterds and there is no shortage of sadistic basterds in this world, so that probably gives enough incentive to sadistic producers to make that movie.</p>
<p>Does “saw” stand for something specific, or does it just mean cut-'em-up like Texas Chainsaw Massacre?</p>
<p>I used to like classic horror, mystery and suspense films (particularly Alfred Hitchcock but also a few B movies like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”). In my opinion, one of the best horror movies ever made was the original (European) version of “Vanished”. No blood, no gore, but an absolutely terrifying ending.</p>
<p>I started to watch the first “Saw” movie, which does have an interesting crime premise, but degenerates into an excuse to present one extreme torture scenario after another. This is a twisted way of appealing to the thrill-seeking that keeps audiences coming back to more innocent stories like Star Wars or Indiana Jones. Instead of keeping some kid on edge anticipating the next feat of daring adventure (involving courage and a moral purpose), he’s kept waiting for the next bizarre incident of violent torture. This is pornographic. Studies have shown links between the exposure of pubescent males to violent porn and future violent criminal behavior. So is it any wonder we have no shortage of sadistic bastards in this world? Where is the cause, and where is the effect?</p>
<p>I enjoy the films because Jigsaw is one of the best realized horror villains in quite some time. Sure, the Saw movies are mostly an excuse for gratuitous violence, but there is underneath all of it at least some attempt at a more cerebral discussion of morality and the human condition. I will agree though that they have become more or less just yearly cash grabs now and that they do really need to stop now and come up with something fresh and new.</p>
<p>Also, saying their is a causal link between violence in movies and video games and the like and future violent behavior is BOLLOCKS, and has zero credibility. Care to cite those studies you mention?</p>
<p>VeryHappy, I worry that if you knew more about the Saw movies you would no longer be very happy.</p>
<p>These movies creep me out so badly I was afraid to open and read this thread. Torture with blood, gore, and mutilation I think, and I’ve only seen a few minutes of a few of them (videos). To me, they are so awful. If there is a cerebral discussion of morality and the human condition in there somewhere, I’ll never watch any of the Saw movies long enough to see it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Saw is pornographic? Are you sure you were watching the same?</p>
<p>Pornography is something sensational or lurid, with no artistic merit. It’s not necessarily sexual, although that’s how it’s usually used.</p>
<p>Has anybody actually watched all of the movies? Does anybody actually know the purpose of all of the movies? If not, you shouldn’t be commenting on the movies. Jigsaw never actually killed anybody. In a way, the people killed themselves. </p>
<p>There is a moral and lesson to all of the movies. Jigsaw was diagnosed with cancer and wasn’t given that much longer to live. At that point, he realized the true meaning of life and wanted to punish other people who didn’t respect life and who did bad things to other people.</p>
<p>Did Jigsaw do the right thing by playing games with these people? Of course not. This is a movie that makes you think about life and how you are really living your own life. To me, it gave me a better appreciation of the life that I have. All the Saw movies have a lot more meaning that any other horror picks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Definition from dictionary.com: “writings, pictures, etc. intended primarily to arouse sexual desire”</p>
<p>Go further down on the page. Dictionary.com is where I got my definition from.</p>
<p><a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography[/url]”>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography</a></p>
<p>I saw Saw II too. Actually, I didn’t but I like writing that.</p>
<p>So the truth is I didn’t SeeSaw too</p>
<p>I think I’ve seen all the SAW movies. I don’t really love them, but the plot is decent, even though it’s kinda too slashery.</p>
<p>Wow, So you Saw Saw Two? Did you See Saw Three too? Sawry I can’t help myself.</p>
<p>As far as some of the earlier posts go, I have heard the ‘Saw’ genre of movies referred to as gore-porn.</p>
<p>There is a rich literature exploring links between violence in movies and video games, or violent pornography, and future violent behavior. A balanced and fairly recent review of some of this literature is in *The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: a public-health approach<a href=“%5Burl%5Dhttp://web.comhem.se/u45381271/12/sem2/browne05.pdf%5B/url%5D”>/i</a></p>
<p>Gore porn is now pervasive. Public censorship probably is a lost cause. Still, one can hope that a child raised in a wholesome, loving, violence-free environment is less likely to seek enjoyment from increasingly extreme, gratuitous violence in media.</p>
<p>
Well, if you saw Saw and you saw Saw Two and you saw Saw Three too, then what did you go and see Saw Four for?</p>
<p>The research done trying to prove a link between violence in media and violent behavior is far from conclusive. In fact, of the roughly 200 peer reviewed articles published on this matter, only half have shown any link at all, and then only then to some agression but not violent crime, and half showing NO LINK OF ANY KIND. So your weight of research basically comes down to half of researchers saying there is “kinda sorta something sort of” and the other half showing zero relationship at all. Not very convincing. Look at Freedman, Jonathan L. (2002). “Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence.”</p>
<p>Furthermore, research in this area frequently fails to take into consideration other variables, like genetics, personality, and family violence, as well as often failing to adequately define “aggression” and what constitutes an “effect.” Indeed, if there were a link between media violence and increase in violent behavior, you would expect media violence, which has steadily risen since the 50’s, to correlate very highly with violent crime, which has cycled up and down and not climbed steadily at all. Additionally, by using only data from the 50’s through the 90’s researchers have created a false illusion of correlation where none exists. There have been large spikes in violent crimes in the US when media violence was no factor at all, such as in the 1880’s and the 1930’s, a time during which the homicide rate has never been higher. Also, the theory of media violence causing violent behavior fails to explain why the rates of violent crime fell in the 90’s and have stayed low, despite the fact that media violence has continued to increase since that time. Finally, media violence researchers cannot explain why many other countries with media violence levels comparable to the US (Norway, Canada, Japan…) have significantly lower violent crime rates.</p>
<p>Therefore, as I previously stated, causal links between violence in media and violent behavior are BOLLOCKS.</p>
<p>Also, public censorship a lost cause? It damn well better be! Censorship of any kind is a terrible thing, fit only for Nazis.</p>
<p>
You might even say that it has seesawed.</p>
<p>
It’s a play on torture (i.e. cutting, etc.) and jigsaw puzzle. Victims have to solve the puzzle to get out of their predicament alive. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the first couple movies in the series were quite original and pretty good. But, the series has gotten a little long in the tooth ala other horror franchises like Halloween and Friday the 13th.</p>