For young filmmakers, Saw is a perfect film. It doesn't cost the GNP of almost every country of the world.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
'Saw' really was like a student film for me; we expected it to go straight to video. I never expected anyone to see that film, and then it becomes one of the most successful horror franchises.
Shooting films in Britain is always difficult, because we've never got enough money to make them.
The lowest budget U.S. films are ten times times better than shooting in Tibet.
I thought the marketing was really smart and really clever and unique at the time. It positioned 'Saw' as a horror film that was different from the other horror films that were in the crowded marketplace.
'Saw' was good and bad. It was good in that it gave me a career start, but it was also negative in that it really marginalized me as a filmmaker.
I don't think a lot of really good films get seen.
Movies are becoming more global, which is making them less intimate. If you make a movie for the world, you don't make it for any country.
'Saw' really came from that want, the aspiration to make a feature film on our own.
We've gotten to a point where it costs so much money to make a movie that directors and filmmakers feel they have to make sure that everybody gets it. And that's an unfortunate development, I think, in a lot of narratives floating around in the film industry.
'Saw,' in many ways, was like my student film. The first crappy student film you don't really want people to see.