Buehrle>Wood Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Yes, this deserved it's own thread. Anyone else pumped for it's release on the 26th? The online trailers so far have been awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Eh, this is like starting a thread every time Britney or Lindsey go to rehab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 09:47 PM) Yes, this deserved it's own thread. Anyone else pumped for it's release on the 26th? The online trailers so far have been awesome. Looking very forward to it. This site, www.houseofjigsaw.com ,has a ton of interesting stuff for the Saw fan. Darren and several of the cast members are members and there are some great threads on the future of the franchise. Supposedly 5 and 6 are currently being filmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 06:01 PM) Looking very forward to it. This site, www.houseofjigsaw.com ,has a ton of interesting stuff for the Saw fan. Darren and several of the cast members are members and there are some great threads on the future of the franchise. Supposedly 5 and 6 are currently being filmed. found this..... 'Saw V' and 'Saw VI' to Shoot Back-to-Back? Posted Oct 17th 2007 1:32PM by Erik Davis According to Bloody-Disgusting, Lionsgate is planning to shoot Saw V and Saw VI back-to-back, perhaps to make sure they have two sequels in the can prior to any sort of Hollywood strike. Either that, or they're just testing director David Hackl and his crew to see how fast they can write and shoot these suckers. Of course, I won't be happy until they write, shoot and have a Saw film in the can in one month, with 12 sequels to watch each year. Maybe by that time they'll figure out a way to clone Tobin Bell before the guy gets so used to being Jigsaw, that he winds up going on a mass killing spree for real. Screenwriters Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton (Feast, Project Greenlight) wrote Saw IV, and they're also signed on to write two more sequels. Good for them! At least someone came off that Project Greenlight show ready to kick serious ass. The most interesting note to come attached to this Bloody-Disgusting story is that, apparently, Lionsgate may skip a year with the Saw films. Yup, that means October 2008 would come and go Saw-free. This has not been confirmed yet, and folks are on it as we speak, but that's what's being reported. Should Saw IV absolutely demolish the box office, I imagine Lionsgate may re-think that strategy. But if Saw IV doesn't put up big numbers, then maybe it would be a good idea to take a year off, let the fans breath, and then come back with a Saw V and Saw VI that absolutely rock. What do you think? Are you ready for the Saw franchise to end? Do you want to keep seeing one installment each year? Or, would you be down with them taking a year off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 While I love this franchise, I don't think I would mind skipping a year to be sure it's done right. Though they haven't had any trouble delivering quality up to this point. Juddling, the "ask Darren" and the "Darren responds" threads are long and some of the comments are stupid, but many of them are extremely rewarding if you can skip over the bs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 06:31 PM) While I love this franchise, I don't think I would mind skipping a year to be sure it's done right. Though they haven't had any trouble delivering quality up to this point. Juddling, the "ask Darren" and the "Darren responds" threads are long and some of the comments are stupid, but many of them are extremely rewarding if you can skip over the bs. Skip over the BS???? heck..if i could do that, I'd be done with Soxtalk in 4 and a half minutes....LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 this series has gotten worse every year, I think chances are ill watch it anyways but hopefully it doesnt continue its downward spiral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 QUOTE(juddling @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 05:24 PM) Skip over the BS???? heck..if i could do that, I'd be done with Soxtalk in 4 and a half minutes....LOL LOL, I was going to make a similar comment in my reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Just out of curiosity, do any of the Saw fans on this site believe that the product has become watered down with 4 movies now, and 2 more on the way? I thought that Saw 3 was supposed to be the conclusion of the series? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 07:57 AM) Just out of curiosity, do any of the Saw fans on this site believe that the product has become watered down with 4 movies now, and 2 more on the way? I thought that Saw 3 was supposed to be the conclusion of the series? I don't. And regarding Saw 3 Bausman never claimed it was the last one. Folks just assumed since John was dying that it was. In fact James Wan and Leigh Whannell said from the start that they had enough material written before they even shopped #1 to make several movies - several different franchises was their direction at that time. And Greg Hoffman added a lot to the mix once he was brought on board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Saw was pretty cool the first time I saw it with a very interesting and somewhat sympathetic killer (if that makes any sense). The idea that perfectly healthy people do so much stupid crap with their lives while he'd give anything to have more time to enjoy his life -- so he took it upon himself to see if they truly did want to live -- was pretty fascinating and a nice take on the traditional horror genre. I have yet to see Saw II or Saw III but I may rent them this weekend if they are as good as the first which I thought was pretty damn good. Do the sequels stand up to the original? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) Saw was pretty cool the first time I saw it with a very interesting and somewhat sympathetic killer (if that makes any sense). The idea that perfectly healthy people do so much stupid crap with their lives while he'd give anything to have more time to enjoy his life -- so he took it upon himself to see if they truly did want to live -- was pretty fascinating and a nice take on the traditional horror genre. I have yet to see Saw II or Saw III but I may rent them this weekend if they are as good as the first which I thought was pretty damn good. Do the sequels stand up to the original? I think so. Lots do. My best friend who swears by horror thinks so as well, and we're very different people. You should like them. I found the next few gorier, and not in a better way, but never needlessly. They're good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Saw II is just a bunch of people trapped in a house running into random traps. The traps are not interesting, don't fit the victims, and some of the people die without even getting to attempt a trap. It sucks, but if you want to follow the series, I guess you need to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) Do the sequels stand up to the original? IMO, no. Obviously some people do like 2 and 3 but I think each movie has gotten worse than the one before. Edited October 21, 2007 by Rowand44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Yeah like previously mentioned in the movies after the first, victims die without a legit shot at survival.... which is really supposed to be what Jigsaw is all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik22 Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) Yeah like previously mentioned in the movies after the first, victims die without a legit shot at survival.... which is really supposed to be what Jigsaw is all about. Well if you understood the movie you would know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 QUOTE(Sonik22 @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 07:02 PM) Well if you understood the movie you would know why. It makes sense for the third movie because of who was setting up the traps, but what was the excuse for the second movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik22 Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) It makes sense for the third movie because of who was setting up the traps, but what was the excuse for the second movie? She was part of the second one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 QUOTE(Sonik22 @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) Well if you understood the movie you would know why. Lol i do understand the movie, and it was mostly the 2nd one that i had the problem with... because that one was set up largely by jigsaw. Even the last one, the 3 victims in the initial trap were setup by Jigsaw and he didnt give them a legit shot to survive themselves only to be saved. And even so they didnt have much of a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) Lol i do understand the movie, and it was mostly the 2nd one that i had the problem with... because that one was set up largely by jigsaw. Even the last one, the 3 victims in the initial trap were setup by Jigsaw and he didnt give them a legit shot to survive themselves only to be saved. And even so they didnt have much of a chance. He had very little to do with the house traps. If you recall he was waiting in his lair for Eric to come and test him with his son's disappearance. She set them all up (first for revenge on Eric for setting her up on drug charges and second to show jiggy that she was worthy to carry on his legacy) as was revealed at the end. And I don't quite follow you on #3... the traps - which again were Amanda's doings (jiggy was on his deathbed), other than Troy's which was to set up Kerry for her's by getting her back on the investigation, were not made for the victims to get out of without assistance. That was Jeff's purpose. To forgive or seek revenge. That was the theme of the installment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Sonik22 @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 08:49 PM) was part of the second one I didn't think anything in II specifically implied that the house was all Amanda's setup and not Jigsaw's. In either case, it doesn't make them (or the movie) any less lame. Edited October 22, 2007 by CrimsonWeltall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 07:31 PM) I didn't think anything in II specifically implied that the house was all Amanda's setup and not Jigsaw's. In either case, it doesn't make them (or the movie) any less lame. Amanda wearing the Jigsaw costume was a pretty specific implication, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoeLessRob Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 You know your Saw Steff... I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 02:44 AM) Amanda wearing the Jigsaw costume was a pretty specific implication, no? No. Perhaps she was necessary to help kidnap the people because Jigsaw was such a gimp, but that doesn't imply she set up the house. Plus, in the tapes that accompanied various rooms, it was Jigsaw's voice explaining the situations, which implies that he devised (or at least approved) the traps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I know the purpose of the last movie was to see if he would forgive or seek revenge, but from number 1 Jigsaw's whole thing was having people realize they are leading a bad life and because of it they need to earn the right to live. Well how did those 3 victims get to choose if they wanted to live or not.... it was all out of their hands. So, to teach 1 person a lesson he is basically willing to sacrafice 3 without letting them give themselves a legit shot at survival. And whether he set up the traps or not doesnt matter because he atleast had a role in them.... and in number 2 and 3 they went completely against what his supposed purpose was from number 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.