Thread: Saw

**Drewbacca** · 02 Nov 2004, 12:14 PM

Rules always get more relaxed as movie makers saturate them with more intense materials. Irreversible has a rape scene that last something like 10 minutes and everyone was talking about it then. The movie wasn't that great (more of an art house piece of trash) but it was European and not a wide release.

There used to be more nudity in films of the 70's compared to now and less violence. So it's give and take. Things haven't relaxed as much as people like to think, it's just that effects get a lot better.

**Dolemite** · 02 Nov 2004, 12:56 PM

In the early 70's the ratings board relaxed on the whole nudity thing for the first time ever, which is why there was so much of it during that era. Everyone and their mother was scrambing to take advantage and make a buck by fitting in as much bare flesh on-screen as they could. There was just so much of it then compared to now because it was new.

A good example was Hammer studios (who did all the Dracula and Frankenstein movies during the 50's and 60's), who tried to save their now-flacid business by showing teh boobies whenever they could.

Back to violence, Martin Scorsese said in in interview once that he filmed an over the top, violent scene for Casino (head in the vice) specifically so that the MPAA would insist it be cut. He was thinking that it would take attenton away from other, more important, violent scenes that wouldn't seem nearly as bad when compared to it. For some reason, the MPAA let it slide. Good strategy, however.

**Drewbacca** · 02 Nov 2004, 01:49 PM

Time change, basically.

**Dolemite** · 02 Nov 2004, 03:01 PM

Saw 2 announced for Halloween 2005 release.

**Rumpy** · 03 Nov 2004, 01:13 AM

Good movie, but disappointing. Had some great ideas, but the big crime is how bad this movie got edited. Nothing is shown. Nothing. Why was this even rated R? The traps were incredibly inventive but we never got to really see the results. It annoyed me how when they show the Doc crawling around, it's just like they made his jeans on the sawed side longer so you just couldn't see his foot. It looked terrible, like pulling your hand into your sleeve and saying it was cut off. No stump, no meat, no gore. They may have done that for money reasons though. And wasn't the guy that played the doc the dude that played Robin Hood in RH: Men in Tights?

**MechDeus** · 03 Nov 2004, 01:21 AM

Funny thing to me about the ratings: They've allowed more in the R movies and less in the G and PG movies. It's like we're adjusting for a bell curve or something.

Originally Posted by Rumpy

And wasn't the guy that played the doc the dude that played Robin Hood in RH: Men in Tights?

Yes, and Jim Carrey's rival for his ex-wife's hand in Liar Liar and more importantly was Wesley in Princess Bride. He also lends his voice to the main character of the recent Bard's Tale videogame.