And let's make one thing clear - it's ok to like "shit." XFear / Eko and I have both sang the praises of "Sleepaway Camp," but they are schlocky shit. So is "Death Wish 3," but it's in my DVD player at least twice a month.
But there's a big difference in something being just cheesy bad, and then just being
bad bad. Atleast a bad movie like Sleepaway Camp 2 or Hudson Hawk is atleast entertaining despite it's flaws; Saw 3 on have been among the most boring movies I've seen in a long time. It feels like I'm watching paint dry.
It was okay. It's vastly overrated though. It's not exactly a Seven.
I don't know, the ideas for the traps are pretty cool, and some of the plot twists and timings are well done.
The ideas for the traps stopped being inventive beyond the 2nd film. And the plot "twists" that I've seen in the last few films have been a mixture of laughable and completely nonsensical and full of gaping plot holes. There is almost no thought put into these plots anymore.
And I'll bet they start working on the next one as soon as one is finished.
That is not a good thing. A rushed film is going to always, ALWAYS be worse then a film who's creators took their time. The amount of time these guys have to shoot, edit, test, and release these films are ridiculiously slim.
Critics' opinions mean more not only for their expertise, but their communication skills too. Part of Roger Ebert's charm is the deadpan way in which he claimed about the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, "there is absolutely no reason for anyone to go see this movie."
See, I've never been too big on Ebert. I'll trust the man's opinion any day of the week in regards to a serious dramatic film, but in regards to anything slightly involving horror or sci-fi, the man's opinion is utterly worthless. This is the same guy who campaigned to have the Friday the 13th films banned, claiming the 80s horror films were responsible for every single problem teenagers faced.
On the subject of Saw I agree about the "gore being the main purpose and it just being made for profit.With that in mind I like the movies and feel that they are done well on their own merit. In comparison to other movies I see a noticeable difference in quality but on it's own merit I like them.
Hey, I understand just as well as any other horror fan how enjoyable a good old splatter flick can be. Me and IC25 are big-time supporters of the Sleepaway Camp films, which are among the most hilariously slapstick-gorey out there (not actually THAT gorey, but you'll never laugh harder while watching someone's head being mowed off). But the Saw films are different. Alot of people don't realize that the first film really isn't very gorey...at ALL. There are maybe 2 or 3 scenes in that movie that might make you cringe; infact the director James Wan went out and intentionally filmed "gore scenes" before the movie was released to get the film an R rating.
But these films are just hollow in my opinion (beyond the first two atleast). I mean, the 2nd film is absolutely horrible, but at the very least it's entertaining for most of the film. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th are all just so incredibly boring to me. Obviously that's just my opinion, but it's an opinion shared by the overwhelming mass/majority of intelligent horror fans.
Correct and at the same time just because an opinion on something like a movie is popular and even backed up by "experts" (critics) doesn't make it so factually right that if someone disagrees they are wrong. It just means that they are "morons." depending on what that opinion applies to, such as your Paris Hilton one. Just because 100 out of 100 people may say that any specific movie is good doesn't mean that if a 101st person comes in they are factually wrong.
Again, this argument is pointless. We could argue that ANYTHING ON EARTH is relative. I could technically argue that slitting a child's throat is all a matter of opinion on whether it's wrong or not. There's absolutely no way to "prove" it's wrong. It's NOT a scientific fact. But we all know OBVIOUSLY that it's wrong.
Chances are that you keep mentioning it because you're continually trying to convince yourself that your opinions are facts.
Everyone's opinion is believed to be true by their own mind. Otherwise they wouldn't have the opinion in the first place. Obviously my opinion can't be punched into a calculator and proven mathematically.
It's true that there is a such thing as a standard of excellence that has been created in various outlets in movies and other things in life but it's also true that standards show what is the common opinion of good BUT just as something being popular doesn't mean that it's good, a popular way of defining what's good doesn't make it factually correct, rather it makes it a common opinion. A common opinion is still an opinion. So why are you passing off opinions as facts??
Because an opinion is a fact in the mind of the person that tells it. Or are you trying to tell me that when you have an opinion on a matter, you don't think your opinion is true? Then why are you saying it? The fact that you've taken a stance on a certain subject proves that you believe it to be true; otherwise, you wouldn't of said it.
Considering that you've deemed those who disagree wrong, I'm not sure why they would argue but really one person's definition of shit can potentially be another person's definition of good or great. Obviously when one person feels one thing it's usually hard to see how the opposite and like I said there are certain standards that are usually considered correct but considered and actually being are not the same thing.
Again with this perspective and "it's all relative" shit. If you want to be technical, EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE. It's relative whether or not the moon exists; maybe some wacko in the desert believes it's a huge light projection by the US government as a conspiracy. There's no absolute way to prove
anything. Science could simply be an illusion. Can you prove it isn't? Of course not. Are you getting where I'm going with this?
When it comes to such things as murder there are ways to say "you're wrong" and legally get on them. That does not apply to opinions like this.
So because something is defined as wrong legally that make's it wrong morally? That's absurd. So by that definition, when slavery was legal it was morally right? Of course not. As I said before, anything and everything is relative technically.
'm sure that you've seen someone that is dating an absolutely hideous guy or girl that appears to also be dumb as hell. If you were to ask them what they see in that beast of a person lol they very well could list off such things as "they are hot, they are intelligent, etc". Just as you expect some sort of examples of how the saw movies have certain qualities of a high standard you'd maybe expect that from the person that you are talking to. Clearly what they're saying is opinion based and from the average persons perspective absolutely wrong but it's still valid. If the person doesn't even say things like "they are smart" and just say "I love them they're great" it's valid. It's messed up and it's not an argument at all, but it's valid.
See: Previous few responses, all of which explaining why anything and everything is relative technically, yet that can't be used as an excuse.
Besides, the dating analogy is flawed. There are no specific criteria for what makes a relationship work; there IS however a
very specific standard to judge a film. The directing, writing, and acting are the three most important things in a movie, and that's just not an arguable point (oh but its all relative, remember? You could argue the stuntman and gaffer are more important then the director and writer, couldn't you?). And the directing, writing, and acting in the films range from mediocre at best to downright apallingly bad at others.
In other words I definitely see what you're saying but it doesn't mean that people using the popular "I'm entitled to my opinion" line have to have excellent arguments to be able to have a valid opinion especially when you've already made it clear that your definition of valid is all that you will accept. At least that's how it seems
Again, see: this post.
What's bullshit is that you're willing to point out the fact that there are existent situations where something being a matter of perspective can't be opinion based and acting like that applies here when it doesn't. Anyone can list off probably hundreds of examples of where different perspectives don't make something right such as your murder one, rape, beastiality etc but that doesn't apply to everything. Things like murder, kidnapping, etc aren't just wrong from a moral standpoint are legally wrong and there is a factual precedent that they are wrong. Can you please provide the legal basis to conclude that the saw movies factually have bad acting to such a degree that it can't be opinion based even if the opinion is no more than "that's how I feel" Unless you can then you're doing nothing but passing off a common opinion as a fact and claiming that there's no way that you can be wrong.
Jesus Christ, every single response of yours says THE EXACT SAME THING. Read my last 12 replies.
I didn't even bother to reply to the rest of your post, because all you do is repeat yourself again and again and again in every paragraph, and I've already answered your point above, more then once.
