General Chat / SAW II

lol, if you just said that hacking and gore makes a movie scarey you are sadly wrong. that is like cheating on a test to get a good grade.

i really liked a history of violence cg?, have you even seen it?

lol, if you just said that hacking and gore makes a movie scarey you are sadly wrong.  that is like cheating on a test to get a good grade.

i really liked a history of violence cg?, have you even seen it?

cg? supported his opinion very well, so I credit him. But that was just pathetic, you proved nothing in that post JBruckner. I would like to know why I'm sadly wrong. Maybe you should look into the style of the movie. A man wakes up isolated in an imagery filled room that is strangely frightening, with a contraption locked around his neck that is filled with spikes on both sides. That device will snap shut on his head in one minute if he doesn't gauge his eye out to retrieve the key. Definately hacking and gore, and definately scarey. There's no man running around with a chainsaw in this movie. All the hacking and gore is done in a way that will make you cringe. So not to contridict myself, I should say I was wrong in saying "hacking and gore" defines the genre. It is however, an element that Saw elaborated on in a unique fashion, which contributed greatly to the film's success in frightening the audience. I don't speak for everyone, but based on how well the movie's done I'm concluding.

...

Actually, bruckner is right.

Horror, as a genre, is not defined by "gore". CG knows this, and even said as much IN this very thread. Gore is just the shortcut most half-bit horror movies used to get an effect resembling horror. You missed CG's point.

Most "horror" movies that are built on what you describe them as are WEAKSAUCE. Think of the 80's.

Most of those are missing the sophistication that cg had described in his post. Only, he called it ART.

merci blitz.

...

Actually, bruckner is right.

Horror, as a genre, is not defined by "gore".  CG knows this, and even said as much IN this very thread.  Gore is just the shortcut most half-bit horror movies used to get an effect resembling horror.  You missed CG's point.

Most "horror" movies that are built on what you describe them as are WEAKSAUCE.  Think of the 80's.

Most of those are missing the sophistication that cg had described in his post.  Only, he called it ART.

That is absoloutly not what Jbruckner said. Jbruckner stated, "if you just said that hacking and gore makes a movie scarey you are sadly wrong." Blitz, in my last post I recognized my mistake, you and cg? are right, "hacking and gore" does not define the genre. It does however, contribute greatly to whether or not a movie is scary, which Jbruckner so breifly said, is not true. I provided evidence for my reasoning of thought in my last two posts, so I won't restate.

i saw this 2day n it was worse than the first one

the "plot twist" wasnt surprising, just kinda pissed me off

Violence and gore do not make a movie scary. You cringe not because you're scared, but because you're disgusted. I believe that violence and gore are put into a movie because people think it's "cool" and it's sort of cathartic for them, in a way. I also believe that gore and violence are put into a movie so that the director can make a statement. Either that the movie needs this violence to add the the realism , or to practically say to the audience "THIS IS MY MOVIE MUTHFUCKA, AND I WON'T BACK DOWN TO ANYONE. FUCK YOU BITCH."

Oh, and Bchiller. In the beginning of Saw II, you weren't scared because the guy's face was going to be slammed into with a mask of nails, but because of the situation. The music, and the setting. It was dark; mysterious. I think they could have taken out the violence, but kept the same sort of situation and setting and it would have still been as intense and scary.

where do they find these shit hole rooms that look so fuckdamn creepy???

i saw it. it get's an "eh" from me. not very good.

i don't know if it could have redeemed the movie, but sometimes i wish i wouldn't have seen what just happened, and like someone stated before, you don't have to carry out the gore and violence to make the movie scarry, and it's probably best if you don't.

and i'm getting pissed at all of these flash backs and half second scenes. it's like the makers are dumbing down the movie for the sake of more profit. hideous. also, people say different words than fuck when they're stressed to hell and back.

i don't know, the whole concept behind both movies was demented and worth taking a peek as to how it would play out... but i guess that doesn't mean anything if the final product makes you feel a tad bit dumber for seeing it, even if the ending was twisted. come on, you knew that was coming. and they explained it. woo hoo!

That is absoloutly not what Jbruckner said. Jbruckner stated, "if you just said that hacking and gore makes a movie scarey you are sadly wrong." Blitz, in my last post I recognized my mistake, you and cg? are right, "hacking and gore" does not define the genre. It does however, contribute greatly to whether or not a movie is scary, which Jbruckner so breifly said, is not true. I provided evidence for my reasoning of thought in my last two posts, so I won't restate.

Well. Gore isn't scary. Really, it's not. I certainly don't find gore scary... it's just special effects to me.

It's SHOCKING, or maybe DISGUSTING... but not scary.

Someone already explained well enough, but I just want to reiterate that the setting/situation/etc is what makes it actually scary. And, in most cases, it's better if the violence is off-screen.

13-15 year olds can't really discern this quality, because they are too enamored with the "zomg! blood and guts! Yay for R movies!" stage of their lives anyway.

Just saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original) last night, and yeah, I gotta agree. They don't make them like they used to anymore. Today's horror movies tend to be too superficial. I think it's a product of our desensitization to violence. Directors think they have to go more and more over the top to make us cringe.

13-15 year olds can't really discern this quality, because they are too enamored with the "zomg! blood and guts! Yay for R movies!" stage of their lives anyway.

heh, that couldn't be more right.

If I was in the same room as a man laying dead on the floor due to a disease that doesn't show any physical symptoms, then I will be scared.

If I was in the same room as a man laying dead on the floor that is coverd in blood and his head is shot off across the room, then I will be FUCKING scared.

Blood and gore is not always what causes scares or make a movie scary, but it can enhance the effect of a scary situation.

I liked Saw not because of the gore and blood but because I thought it was very intruiging and suspensful. The blood and gore enhance the setting they were trying to create, and although not necessary, it did add to the "scare factor" for the majority of audiences.

Of course not everyone will be scared by blood and gore, but some can't even stand the sight of it and is scared shitless even by a little drop of blood. It all depends.

Edited by misolbaid, 04 November 2005 - 07:13 PM.

the part that ruined the movie for me was the only "jump" scene--the part where the black dude said he found a key. wtf? actually make it scary if you're going to put it in at all. it made me laugh.

Edited by penguinBOB, 04 November 2005 - 10:55 PM.

Just saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original) last night, and yeah, I gotta agree.  They don't make them like they used to anymore.  Today's horror movies tend to be too superficial.  I think it's a product of our desensitization to violence.  Directors think they have to go more and more over the top to make us cringe.

Didn't you feel Cork, like you were watching a "snuff film" while watching TCM?

It really has that feeling, like you're watching live footage that you shouldn't be seeing.

Tobe Hooper's crowning moment (aside from the collabo disaster otherwise known as Poltergeist).

Didn't you feel Cork, like you were watching a "snuff film" while watching TCM?

It really has that feeling, like you're watching live footage that you shouldn't be seeing.

Tobe Hooper's crowning moment (aside from the collabo disaster otherwise known as Poltergeist).

yeah, I agree...

hitchcock also... he used the camera to peer in through windows, making the audience pov that of someone spying on the actors.

Snuff films are fucked up.

Snuff films are fucked up.

Which is why the original Texas CM is SOOOOOOOOOOO effective as a horror film. It really hits that primal nerve.........that and the fact that it was based on the true story of fine Texas American Ed Gein (sp?).

I don't exactly think they were going for a horror movie but more of a suspense thriller for Saw 1 and 2. I think they are both really great movies that you never know what to expect. Have to love the twisted endings. I own them both

Which is why the original Texas CM is SOOOOOOOOOOO effective as a horror film. It really hits that primal nerve.........that and the fact that it was based on the true story of fine Texas American Ed Gein  (sp?).

Do you know how many horror films have been based on "the true story of fine Texas American Ed Gein"? The most accurate in terms of his personality was actually "Psycho", while the most accurate in terms of his crimes was actually "Silence of the lambs" (not Hannibal Lector, but the other guy).

Texas Chainsaw Massacre just took a few elements of his crimes and let it run wild, splitting him off into a whole family, adding in a bunch of stuff which has nothing to do with the truth, and fitting it nicely within the "teens stumble into nasty psycho" plotline, which had nothing to do with reality (Ed Gein's victims were all known to him).

There isn't even anyone who fits the description of Ed Gein at all, apart from his crimes.