I know it’s become a trademark of the series. But the truth is that they could have done without it. The movie’s plot was good enough, John Cramer was a good protagonist / anti-hero, and the overall atmosphere was good. We really didn’t need the excessive gore, such as graphic scenes of a dismembered leg and of intestines etc. I personally looked away during those scenes
shareGet over it
shareIt basically has become gore porn that panders to those few weird people that get off on gore.... This type of movie popped up in the 70's but fortunately it petered out pretty quick because it really doesn't help the story and only manages to turn off some potential viewers.
shareCan you list some movies that are like this from the 70s?
shareYou already answered that with your first sentence - it's the trademark of the series.
If you feel it doesn't need the gore plus the fact you looked away during those scenes then this is clearly not the film for you.
This series has been going on for almost 20 years now with a massive fan base (mainly because if the gore); the makers are not going to change the dynamics of it now.
Who watches a Saw movie and complains that there's too much gore. That's like one of the main selling points of this franchise.
shareLol. No doubt. Some people aye.
shareIt’s known for its gore. But the point is that they could do without it. The movie would be fine without it
shareI strongly disagree on this. There's nothing wrong with disliking gore in movies, but the Saw movies would not be fine without it. They would loose the one thing that makes them interesting and shocking for most people.
shareYou looked away. Your point is invalid. The story of this movie was dogshit, also. Your take is just horrible. Don't quit your job.
share