On the philosophical implications of Saw.

[shortylickens]

Am I the only one who thought John wasnt that clever and basically a failure?

His only sucess was from a person who didnt have to mutilate themselves but rather someone else.
She was a failure as a student because she never really got the message. She inflicted pain and misery on people who had no chance to be saved or save themselves.
She wasnt trying to teach a lesson, she was just trying to pass on her pain and anguish.

John failed as a teacher because his student didnt grasp the lesson and died because of it.

Discuss.


(Please note: I have no idea what the plot of Saw 4 will be.)

 

[Pepsi90919]

Saw 1 and 2 were great. anything after that was a waste of time and was made up as they went along.

 

[tokie]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Saw 1 and 2 were great. anything after that was a waste of time and was made up as they went along.

I'd say 2 was nearly as bad as 3. The original was really the only good one.

 

[shortylickens]

So John failed because, why?
The writers got lazy?


He kept testing people and none of them passed, except Amanda.
And she didnt have to endure anything, she made someone else suffer.
It looks like it just twisted her worse, made her love life even less.

Not to mention we never found out what happened with Cary Elwes or Danny Glover. Did they learn a lesson and go on to live life to its fullest?