Topic: Are they serious? (Read 15052 times)

StaedlerMars · « **on:** 16 Oct 2007, 04:51 »

There's a Saw IV coming out?

Isn't that pushing it?

I mean, they even stopped scream after the third one. And Saw 1 wasn't even that good.

bryanthelion · « **Reply #1 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 05:58 »

They're coming out with seven saws. I thought they were beating a dead horse when they came out with a 3rd one...

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #2 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 07:32 »

Conspiracy theory - Saw is doing seven movies because it is kind of like an inside joke, linking it back to the movie Se7en, because they are actually the exact same premise for a movie, but Saw is dumber.

Joseph · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 11:36 »

Wikipedia claims that there are going to be six made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_%28film_series%29#Future_development

Still way too much. Though I can't claim to have seen even one of them.

Tehz · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 13:05 »

Three was too many.

Six?

Mnementh · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 13:54 »

One was far too many.

I do love the fact that Saw IV is subtitled: "It's a trap."

Thy Dungeonman · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 15:15 »

They make so many Saw movies because (from what I've heard) they're cheap to make and most people are idiots that pay money to see them.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 17:04 »

It's true. All the Saw movies are pretty low budget, using mostly no-name actors in very small, enclosed sets with no special effects other than the ones for gore, which aren't all that expensive to create. Movies like that are like money machines for the studios that make them and I'm not at all surprised they're making as many as possible. All I know is I'm not going to see them (I stopped watching after two).

thepugs · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 17:49 »

Wikipedia also says "all the movies in the Saw series have managed to gross over $50 million, putting them in the top 5 all-time highest total gross for Lions Gate."

Essentially they can take whatever old mechanical crap they have lying around, throw in fake blood and the same recycled storyline, and put some cash money in their pockets. What's their motivation not to do so?

I did actually enjoy the first Saw, but the subsequent movies have been pretty shit.

MusicScribbles · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 19:27 »

This works because it's a teen-fed money machine. Grade school boys and girls old enough will see these movies until they stop making them. Fuck Hollywood.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #10 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 19:43 »

But...if they're putting very little money into it that probably wouldn't go to other projects anyway...and getting lots of money to fund different projects out of it...and not forcing you to see it...

Why the fuck do you care?

Emaline · « **Reply #11 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 20:54 »

Quote from: Daniel on 16 Oct 2007, 13:54

One was far too many.

QFT

tomselleck69 · « **Reply #12 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 21:24 »

the answer is that they're not serious. sure it'll happen, but they were never serious.

what is serious about these movies

Johnny C · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 00:30 »

Quote from: Daniel on 16 Oct 2007, 13:54

I do love the fact that Saw IV is subtitled: "It's a trap."

When I saw this I laughed so fucking hard.

öde · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 02:01 »

Now we can judge people based on how many Saw movies they own on DVD.

1 - That's ok, I guess.
2 - Pushing it, but I shouldn't be snobby.
3 - What is wrong with you?
4 - Oh my god your whole house is filled with empty beer can pyramids and posters of ladies.
5 - Your Newton's cradle fascinates you for hours on end.
6 - Sometimes you forget to breath.

Inlander · « **Reply #15 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 02:39 »

So you're assuming that everybody is going to own at least one Saw D.V.D.? That's a pretty depressing view of humanity.

StaedlerMars · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 03:33 »

People should spend their money on something awesomer than buying the 6 saw movies..

like buying the Evil Dead movies.

That would be a much better way of spending your money.

You should then also give them to me.

analogthought · « **Reply #17 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 10:51 »

The reason to care that they're making these crappy movies is because it sets the bar lower and lower for the horror/gore genre. I'm a huge fan of horror movies, but when movies like this come out and they make some kind of money it only perpetuates the notion that making uninspired, rehashed, over-done movies is the way to go. Ahem, Amityville remake, Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (WITH the girl from 7th Heaven no less), and of course all the others that have followed. Not many studios or anyone else in Hollywood for that matter are really taking any chances with new material. When you look back at some of the greatest horror movies, like the Exorcist, those movies were really controversial and drew so much attention for actually showing some weight in their plots, scripts and acting. I miss horror movies of that caliber.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #18 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 08:25 »

Quote from: analogthought on 17 Oct 2007, 10:51

The reason to care that they're making these crappy movies is because it sets the bar lower and lower for the horror/gore genre.

Oh come on. Like there's a bar? Have you ever seen Beware: Children at Play? Alien Prey? Driller Killer? Nightmares in a Damaged Brain?

And those are just the ones that aren't self-aware...

Dimmukane · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 10:31 »

The Cube>Saw

Darby Crashed · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 10:35 »

Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights>Saw

analogthought · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 10:50 »

That's the whole point... there was once a bar that set some sort of quality within the genre. Of course, the birth of those great films also brought with it the onslaught of those trying (to this day) to recreate them. Not recreate in their own way, but in the same was as the originals. For me personally, the only films that have come close to actual entertainment and some grain of quality are those that ARE self-aware of what they're doing. By that I mean the whole of Grind House(both films) and of course the awesomely bad Hatchet. With Hatchet they completely made fun of all the original movies that boasted the same theme, mysterious undead killer in the woods, slutty topless girls, and bad bad acting/writing. There were some great gory moments in the film, but anyone who thought that movie was trying to be serious, seriously missed the point. Then you have movies like Saw, Hostel, etc. who say to you "we really did try to make the acting decent, the effects gory enough to one up everyone else, cinematography, etc" and yet it still comes off as a limp dick of a horror movie. These are of course only my opinions... and I'm sure I'll get LOADS of crap for this... but Blair Witch was a movie so many hated... but as a fan of the genre, it was nice to see the cgi not trying to outdo everything else, the acting coming across as more genuine, and completely cooler to not know what the hell exactly it was I was supposed to be afraid of. I hadn't seen anything like it in the theater in a long time and since then I don't think I've seen anything to rival it. Anyone who makes as much money off of such a low budget movie as they did, has to tell you something... people are starved for something new and more than that, willing to pay for it. But like all movies that make loot, there have been since, probably 20 different rip off movies... one off the top of my head, Sector 9, which was of course... awful.
Sorry for the long rant...

Darby Crashed · « **Reply #22 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 12:32 »

How did you write down an entire tirade about "self aware" bad horror movies and not once mention the Evil Dead series?

how could you do a thing like that?

analogthought · « **Reply #23 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 12:54 »

god, you're completely right... i'm an a**hole.
of course, even had i said evil dead, you could have said "what about bad taste? or dead alive.... or...

but yes, evil dead is up there. and even that is rumored for a remake... or has been for a long time.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #24 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 17:01 »

I dunno, Driller Killer was fairly original.

And also shit.

The sad thing is, it's just so hard to play horror straight nowadays, and most directors/studios etc. (at least in the west) haven't got the balls to do it: after all, a genuinely disturbing horror film doesn't often do as well as a slasher flick. We're all far too genre aware to get away with anything but deconstructions, pastiches and parodies in mainstream Hollywood. Though, I've got to say, it's not like most of the best horror movies of all time were major productions anyway. I can think of a bare few (The Exorcist, Alien, The Shining) weighed up against a mass of genre defining films that were made for almost nothing (Evil Dead, The Last House on the Left, Texas Chainsaw Massacre) not to mention all the non-american classics (Ringu, Dark Water, Brain Dead, The Wicker Man, Bad Taste, Witchfinder General)...I could go on. But what I'm saying is, the major studios have always been making Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, and the problem basically is that there's no commercially viable gimmicks left merged with the fact that most indie film makers nowadays worship the mighty phalluses of Michel Gondry and Wes Anderson.

KvP · « **Reply #25 on:** 18 Oct 2007, 17:57 »

I don't know, there's the 28 X Later films, amirite? I liked the first one because Danny Boyle had the balls to turn out a happy ending against conventions, but the second one I wasn't so fond of, though I'm not saying it's bad.

negative creep · « **Reply #26 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 14:39 »

I think they count as zombie movies rather than horror movies. At least I see those as 2 different genres.

Hat · « **Reply #27 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 14:57 »

Quote from: öde on 17 Oct 2007, 02:01

Now we can judge people based on how many Saw movies they own on DVD.

1 - That's ok, I guess.
2 - Pushing it, but I shouldn't be snobby.
3 - What is wrong with you?
4 - Oh my god your whole house is filled with empty beer can pyramids and posters of ladies.
5 - Your Newton's cradle fascinates you for hours on end.
6 - Sometimes you forget to breath.

It's funny because there are three Saw movies on DVD in my house and probably will be four when possible, and there are also liquor can pyramids except that it's my pyramid, and I fucking hate these movies.

If I showed you our DVD collection some of you would cry, I assure you.

Liz · « **Reply #28 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 15:04 »

I don't own any. What's 0 mean?

Storm Rider · « **Reply #29 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 15:40 »

No, I think it just means you're a decent human being.

Liz · « **Reply #30 on:** 21 Oct 2007, 15:46 »

All of them.

I've actually never seen any of the Saw movies, no do I have any desire to.

öde · « **Reply #31 on:** 22 Oct 2007, 13:13 »

The first for me was xXx.

Liz · « **Reply #32 on:** 22 Oct 2007, 13:20 »

I don't think I've actually had to turn a movie off, but I've been known to leave the room without realizing it. If the entertainment is bad enough I lose interest pretty easily.

Liz · « **Reply #33 on:** 22 Oct 2007, 13:39 »

Please god no. I do not want to. I know it's bad and I don't think I should be subjected to that.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #34 on:** 22 Oct 2007, 19:53 »

i think the geneva convention protects against doing such a thing

then again, they aren't Gigli

leave for no raisin · « **Reply #35 on:** 22 Oct 2007, 23:31 »

That's an interesting phenomenon. Everyone always talks about how horrible Gigli is, but I don't actually know anyone who has seen it. I also worked at a video store for three years, and I never once rented it out or reshelved it.

I have never seen Saw, and that is completely by choice.

0bsessions · « **Reply #36 on:** 23 Oct 2007, 07:03 »

Personally, I'd have to say that Blair Witch Project was the single worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen all three Saw movies (They're honestly a half-decent "get drunk, go to the movies and buy popcorn" flick).

0bsessions · « **Reply #37 on:** 23 Oct 2007, 07:31 »

Quote

Anyways is full of shit and The Blair Witch Project is quite clearly the biggest pile of "cinematic" trash ever committed to film.

Source

analogthought · « **Reply #38 on:** 23 Oct 2007, 09:44 »

Okay, so you're either a "Blair Witch Project" or a "Saw".... just like you're a Democrat or a Republican. Now I get it.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #39 on:** 23 Oct 2007, 11:26 »

So...what about 30 Days of Night? Is that a crappy horror movie?

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #40 on:** 23 Oct 2007, 14:10 »

There is a big difference.

30 Days Of Night is probably good, the Saw series is fucking horrible.

analogthought · « **Reply #41 on:** 26 Oct 2007, 22:03 »

can someone explain (who didn't like) why people didn't like blair witch project?
and 30 days of night looks okay for a pulpy vampire flick if that's your bag. I'm thinking netflix.

viva_x · « **Reply #42 on:** 19 Nov 2007, 00:24 »

Quote from: Anyways on 22 Oct 2007, 23:11

Has anyone actually seen Gigli?

Is it really worse than Saw?

errrrrr

i saw Gigli. Girls night out bonding with my sister, it was the only movie out, i swear.

I haven't, however, seen any of the Saw movies, nor do i want to.
So i say by default, Gigli is better.

Because jennifer lopez is a lesbian.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #43 on:** 19 Nov 2007, 03:06 »

30 Days of Night has a scene where an insane Alaskan man goes on a rampage in a JCB with a giant chainsaw on the front, covered in fucking bear-traps, shooting vampires in the head with a fucking shotgun. At one point, a vampire jumps on his windscreen, and he shoots it in the head, and it flies off and lands on the Chainsaw and gets cut in fucking half. Then one jumps up at the door, and he just opens the door, smashes it to the ground whilst yelling "FUCK OFF!" and then runs over its head.

What I'm saying is that it's somewhere up there with Citizen Kane.

Guys, seriously, if you think Saw is the worst movie ever made, you've lived fine, upstanding lives.

Worst movie of all time is the remake of The Wicker Man.

Inlander · « **Reply #44 on:** 19 Nov 2007, 04:20 »

I'm pretty sure Piranha Part Two: the Spawning is worse. I mean, it's so bad that when it was on late-night commercial T.V. here several years ago the network couldn't even sell any of the advertising slots. Didn't stop them having ad breaks, though: the screen just went black for a few minutes every twenty minutes or so, then the film resumed.

Of course, we all know that the worst movie of all time is THE MOVIE THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED. (The one that was directed by the daughter of an acclaimed male director.)

KharBevNor · « **Reply #45 on:** 19 Nov 2007, 10:42 »

Boxing Helena?

No, man, seriously. Remake of the wicker man.

Johnny C · « **Reply #46 on:** 19 Nov 2007, 11:58 »

Quote from: Inlander on 19 Nov 2007, 04:20

(The one that was directed by the daughter of an acclaimed male director.)

fuck you man i liked lost in translation

thehollow · « **Reply #47 on:** 20 Nov 2007, 19:42 »

Quote from: leave for no raisin on 22 Oct 2007, 23:31

That's an interesting phenomenon. Everyone always talks about how horrible Gigli is, but I don't actually know anyone who has seen it. I also worked at a video store for three years, and I never once rented it out or reshelved it.

I have never seen Saw, and that is completely by choice.

I watched Gigli dubbed in spanish on a bus in spain. It's godawful in spanish, I assume it's just as bad in english.

Liz · « **Reply #48 on:** 24 Nov 2007, 22:00 »

I'm thinking it's a good thing that I have yet to see either one.

Thrillho · « **Reply #49 on:** 26 Nov 2007, 05:49 »

I still don't get what is supposed to be entertaining about watching someone get their hands trapped in a box of razorblades or something. I mean, why is that enjoyable?

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Are they serious? (Read 15052 times)

Mnementh

thepugs

analogthought

analogthought

analogthought

leave for no raisin

analogthought

analogthought