In Defense of the 'Saw' Series
10.19.09 By: Scott Weinberg
People who know nothing about horror films still like to take a cheap-shot when they can. They see a film with a 5 or a 6 in the title, and they get all clever: "Wow, part 6 already? Why? Who makes this stuff? Does anyone care anymore?" and all that jazz. Now, before I start ranting proper, I'm not saying that you're WRONG if you don't like the Saw films. I'm just sick of the knee-jerk reactions from people who'd happily mock a "Saw 6," but then run right home to catch the 11th season premiere of "CSI: New Jersey." Matter of fact, that's where I'll start:
It's a Serial!
The massively popular, horror-centric, and entirely silly True Blood is discussed like it's the reinvention of the vampire. (It's not. But it's good.) So far there have been 24 60-minute episodes of True Blood, which equals 1,440 minutes. By comparison the first five Saw films equal about 475 minutes. My point is this: Why should we hear cries of "enough!" on one and "ooooh, more please!" on another? Do the horror geeks not deserve their own equivalent of an "unending" soap opera? Is it fair that people bemoan a Saw 6 yet sit down for General Hospital ... every day for 15 years??
Enough Already?
Let's say you work for a company called Twisted Pictures or Lionsgate Films. You rolled the dice on an indie horror flick six years ago, and now it's turned into the golden goose. Your most recent chapter made about $113 million in worldwide box office. So between the money you're generating and the fans you're (clearly) appeasing, why the HELL would you stop making new chapters? Frankly I had enough of Harry Potter after three books, but I didn't wish the series dead just to suit me! Seven movies about a boy wizard are magical, transcendent, wonderful. But a horror fan's serial is what? Pure crap, right? Seems fair to me...
Quality Control
Maybe it's because I grew up in the era of Friday the 13th and Police Academy, but I see some actual effort being put forth in the Saw sequels. But here's the thing: I think (way) back when I bought a ticket to (let's say) Friday the 13th Part 5: A New Beginning. Even at 14 I knew I was going to get the EXACT same movie I got last year, only the actors and the kills would be slightly different. I knew it, and I was fine with it, much like a roller coaster junkie would show up to the same amusement park he visited last summer: Because he likes the ride! But here's the icing: The Saw-makers don't WANT to do the exact same "body count" each time out. They kill off major characters, they try to throw the fans some surprises, they still have dialog aside from "Who's there? Stop it guys, you're creeping me out!" And they're not PG-13.
In Closing
Do I think the Saw films are above reproach? Hell, no. Aside from the first one, I wouldn't call any of them "horror classics" by any stretch of the imagination. Given that the producers have placed themselves on a "one per year" assembly line, you're of course going to get some ripe performances, some editorial missteps, some unsuccessful diversions, and some plain old bad ideas. (Just like you'd get in any long-running franchise.) And obviously you have the right to avoid "harsh" horror films if they're not to your liking. I'm just sick of the Saw franchise being singled out for crimes committed by virtually every film franchise or TV series under the sun.
Plus 80% of the criticisms come from people way too wimpy to sit through the whole franchise ... so nyeah.
Filed under: Discussion Posts, Movies We Love
Reader Comments (1 of 1)
Peter Hallat 10-19-2009
What major characters have they killed off? (Killed, in the case of a serial, being removed from the storyline.)
Danat 10-19-2009
Danny Glover in Saw, Donnie Wahlberg in Saw II, Amanda in Saw III, etc.
Interesting read, I can see where you're coming from on a few points, but the whole thing became a joke after Saw III (when the damn antagonist DIED). That should have spelled the end. Saw IV was terrible and Saw V was practically incomprehensible -- not helped by the woeful casting choice of the two men, who looked SO identical I kept forgetting which was the good guy and which was the villain. I won't be watching any more after that crap sandwich.
Tylerat 10-19-2009
Technically, Dan, Donnie died in Saw IV.
Vardulonat 10-21-2009
Also Danny Glover's character showed up in the Saw video game, although it's completely unclear if that's supposed to be canon or not.
Traceat 10-19-2009
Agreed. 99% of the people that will go and see Saw know exactly what we are getting.
Awesome deathtraps and people still trying to figure out who Jigsaw is.
Wings (Caffeinated Joe)at 10-19-2009
THANK YOU for this post!
Yes, the SAW films have their detriments. But anything has its high and low points.
If people like them, let them. I watch the all, even if they aren't m favorite. It is something interesting and better than the usual straight-to-DVD or SyFy crap.
Thank you. Gonna forward this post!
Brianat 10-19-2009
Comparing them to Harry Potter may be a little disingenuous. I think part of the reason for the strenuous objections to the continuation of the SAW series is that it is so damn mean and nasty.
Scottat 10-20-2009
"Given that the producers have placed themselves on a "one per year" assembly line, you're of course going to get some ripe performances, some editorial missteps, some unsuccessful diversions, and some plain old bad ideas."
Then it's time to call it a day, because sloppy filmmaking doesn't do anybody any favours.
Wexlerat 10-20-2009
I think one thing to note when it comes to people like this is that the majority of movie sequels are pretty bad. Most TV shows nowadays have at least a couple plot lines woven through multiple episodes, even multiple seasons, which help to justify their longevity. A movie sequel on the other hand is often made because its predecessor was successful and can have little to nothing to do with its previous entry. Unfortunately this gives good sequels a bad rap. It's rare that a movie sequel is made with a thoughtful desire to continue the plot or even a subplot, and it's even less likely that it was planned from the beginning.
Of course another thing to consider is with any movie series you will have people who only watched the first one and hated it, and will complain about every sequel that follows in the series for the rest of their lives, but it's best not to give people like that too much attention.
Riley Freemanat 10-20-2009
thank you for this. let us saw fans enjoy this.
Brandon Sullivanat 10-20-2009
Thank you for writing this, I believe, astute defense of the Saw series. I believe that movies and TV are not entirely comparable to each other (given how money goes into making each, production schedule, etc.), but you really got to the heart of things when you pointed out how Saw is continually not satisfied with giving viewers the same experience each time around. Each Saw movie is distinctly and entirely separate from each other (besides of course having the necessary series tropes like Jigsaw, traps, victims), and as the series goes along they become increasingly labyrinthine and confusing (many times frustratingly so, especially in the case of Saw V).Are they the best horror movies out there? Not even close. Anyone who tries to classify them as such clearly has not seen any of them. But it's just as worse to call them some of the worst horror films ever made.
I never saw Friday the 13th or A Nightmare of Elm Street until a few months ago. I Netflix'd them , and after the third Friday the 13th I was bored out of my skull. I couldn't finish the series - because it's all the exact same thing. They don't even try to change it around. When I popped in a Nightmare on Elm Street and its sequels, hoping for something better, I was extremely disappointed to find the exact same thing occurring. The second movie is a carbon copy of the first. And the third is a carbon copy of the first. And so on. Except for changing the cast slightly, you know with both Freddy and Jason exactly what's going to happen, each and every time. And it's boring as hell. Even the twi
This is why I enjoy the Saw series so much, even though I'll admit freely to anyone that they are not the best horror movies I've seen, not even close. I enjoy them because they're always striving for something more (yes, most of the time pretty clumsily), something different from the previous outing that CONTINUES Jigsaw's story (and yes it is absurd that he died in the third film and they're still going full steam ahead, but oh well) and tries to tell something new. By contrast, Freddy and Jason were always about the same group of stupid unlucky teenagers, over and over and over and over again. I'll never finish watching either of the series, theres' no motivation - I know exactly how each of them will end, and exactly how little I'll care about any of the main characters. Saw, by contrast - well, you never now exactly where they're going to go, do you?
Taylor Barrattat 10-21-2009
The first Nightmare on Elm Street is brilliant horror (minus the final shot, which Craven didn't want and regrets to this day) and the final film "New Nightmare" was a good way to help redeem the series name all the crap that happened between those films.
The first Saw was disingenuous and Elwes overacting (sort of like Furlong's cracking voice in T2) really hampers repeat viewings It was a good idea, for 1 movie. I saw 2, it's mean, lame and not really what I'd call horror anyhow. Or was it 3 with the shootout? *shrug*
But hey, arguing with horror film fans is akin to shaving my balls with a cheese grater.
Some of you still think L'Interieur was brilliant yet claim Martyrs is torture porn.
Oh good, the dishwasher is done...
Vardulonat 10-21-2009
You know, in the entire Saw franchise there's been one great moment - the last shot of the first movie.
But that moment was so great that it's kept me watching the series, hoping it would hit that height again.
It hasn't, though. And if 6 is as bad as the rest, I might have call it quits before Saw 7 (in 3-D!).
cablebfgat 10-24-2009
Ok, so, I fall in the camp of people who saw the first Saw (yea, I know what I did there) and was not interested in the sequels. Not because I didn't like the first; I did. Instead, because the first had a good concept and all too often I have seen a film without a planned sequel become successful and that studio driving the concept into the ground. From what I can tell, this is no different with the Saw series.
In light of this, I find some of the notes made by Scott and a few comments interesting in how they don't just rehash the same plot over and over. Does that means it gets a break for being below mediocre, as many of yall have said? I don't think it does.
The thing about a TV series or a book series (sorry, the Potter films are no where close to the books) is that they generally get progressively better or reach their high point somewhere near the middle. With the Saw series, I don't see anyone claiming the series has gotten better as it has gone along.
Instead, there seems to be a deep drop off from the first film and has gotten progressively more ridiculous and absurd. I don't know who sees these films, but I guess they are enjoyed for some reason that escapes me. Do they mix up the formula? It seems like it. But if the film still ends up utter crap, does the means to the end really matter? I find it hard to believe it does.
But, you get what you pay for. After all, I didn't see the numerous remakes of the Nightmare nor Halloween series either, so using them as your defense against someone like me is pointless, because I see no reason for the endless sequels. prequels and remakes as it is.
cablebfgat 10-24-2009
btw, Great article Scott. You certainly got discussion going.