Poll: Soooo... Saw VI: Who is actually going to watch it?

[RAMBO22]

I will watch this movie eventually even though I know it will inevitably be horrible. I have watched every single Saw movie since it came out and I can't stop now, no matter how terrible the particular film has been (for example the plague on mankind that was Saw V).

What is happening to the Saw series is what I call the "Halloween 5000 Effect" in which so many movies involving the same characters and plot within a series are made that the public simply loses interest in the latter releases. I'm very saddenned this effect is happening to the Saw series, although I have to say this effect doesn't necessarily apply because of the shifting of protagonists (for the most part) in the films. Although there are a couple characters that get good face time in the movie for every single Saw film (like that cop-father dude).

Even after all this negative talk about the series, I'm almost positive that for better or worse I will watch this movie.

 

[The_Healer]

Ok. They have made 6 movies in 5 years.

6 movies in 6 years actually.

No...
First one came out in 2004.

2009 - 2004 = 5

Edit: I guess I should be more lenient, I know they don't actually teach you to count in New Zealand.

It came out in 2004, that doesn't mean it was made in 2004.

And by your argument, they might have made saw 6 in the 1600's.

 

[theultimateend]

No thanks its the kinda film teenage girls watch & go 'Ooohhh scary'.

The 'plot' if thats what its meant to be is moronic, how long did this dieing of cancer dude cling on for 3 movies WTF ? Whos his oncologist & get me his number.

The only redeeming feature of the series is Shawnee Smith. Ive never noticed the music and if a films relying on the music thats kinda sad :/

/snip

I've never understood the popularity behind slasher films . . . if I want a scary movie, I'll go to something along the lines of "Paranormal Activity."

Your avatar makes your comments funny.

That and the fact that this isn't a slasher film. Get your terminology right .

Its a slasher film get over yourself. If it has moral kills, needless gore, thin plotting and a mask wearing nutter its a slasher film by definition.

Just because you don't know terminology doesn't mean you have to be rude.

"Slasher film is a sub-genre of the horror film genre typically involving a psychopathic killer stalking and killing a sequence of victims in a graphically violent manner, often with a cutting tool such as a chainsaw or scythe. Although the term "slasher" may be used as a generic term for any horror movie involving graphic acts of murder, the slasher as a genre has its own set of characteristics which set it apart from related genres like the splatter film. Writer Adam Rockoff, in an interview with Bryan Layne reported in Oddity Cinema, says: "I guess I could spout out some academic BS, but really, I think that as long as you have a killer who murders people with sharp objects, and a few thematic and/or stylistic conventions that have become staples of the genre? the final girl or the killer?s POV, etc.? you?ve got yourself a slasher film."[1]"

It is a shitty film yes (in my opinion) but it is not a slasher film. It is just gore porn. I actually enjoyed slasher films and this is nothing like them (without getting so ambiguous you could basically put action films into the same category, which you just basically did).

 

[Eagle Est1986]

Ok. They have made 6 movies in 5 years.

6 movies in 6 years actually.

No...
First one came out in 2004.

2009 - 2004 = 5

Edit: I guess I should be more lenient, I know they don't actually teach you to count in New Zealand.

6 in 6 years.

2004 - 1st year
2005 - 2nd year
2006 - 3rd year
2007 - 4th year
2008 - 5th year
2009 - 6th year

But nice try at counting, you were only one off!

Oh for gods sake! Do you not read the other posts in the thread, I already explained this. Saw 1 was released in December 2004, meaning that its doesn't count as a full year, as we are not yet to December 2009 yet. The number of the years is 5.

Lord knows where you get your information from, but I distinctly remember watching the first film for Halloween 2004.
It was actually first shown at the Sundance Film Festival of January 2004, so if that makes you feel any better, it's actually been closer to 7 years since the first film was shown to audiences.

Well it can hardly be my fault that IMDB lied to me about it, if you're so sure you're right.

Haha, the second half of my info was from IMDB and Wiki. Anyways, it's not your fault you live in Oz and everything is released late there. And I think us Europeans get it bad....

 

[nathan-dts]

Ok. They have made 6 movies in 5 years.

6 movies in 6 years actually.

No...
First one came out in 2004.

2009 - 2004 = 5

Edit: I guess I should be more lenient, I know they don't actually teach you to count in New Zealand.

6 movies in 6 years.
Saw = 2004
Saw 2 = 2005
Saw 3 = 2006
Saw 4 = 2007
Saw 5 = 2008
Saw 6 = 2009

 

[DemonicVixen]

i have just watched Saw 1 and loved it... can't wait to watch the 2nd one tomorrow and then the third e.t.c..... YES i am gonna watch the 6th....BRING ON THE GAMES lol !!!

 

[Spacelord]

I really liked Saw 1. Didn't watch any of the sequels, nor do I intend to.

 

[Danman1]

Never. Unless my gf makes me.

 

[Disaster Button]

Spoiler

I just discovered my love for Saw. So yes.

There going up to 8 films far as I know.

But...so far they are all awful films...
There the simple man's answer to the masterpiece that was Se7en. The script is shoddy, the acting is average, and the story is full of clichés, not to mention the whole premise is fundamentally flawed - trying to get people to value life more by putting them in in-escapable positions? Because that makes perfect sense...
/rant

I quite enjoyed the first 3, it's all I've seen so far. Also never seen Se7en.

I've enjoyed the scripts so far and the twists were very good at the end and they were very cleverly written. I find it sad they get labelled as gore films because even tohugh they are they're a lot more than that. They're incredibly deep and psychoilogical. Really made me think. I've never noticed cliches.

And the situations are not unescapable. This will take some epxlaining: [HEADING=2] Spoilers. [/HEADING]

Jigsaw always makes sure theyre in escapable positions. The guys in the first Saw. Amanda in Saw I. In Saw 2 the boy escapes with help from Amanda who also escapes.
The guys who don't escape are victims of Amanda's Games, Jigsaws Apprentice. She didn't get it and murdered them by placing them into un escapable positions. The whole plot of Saw III is that she never understoof what it meant to do what Jigsaw wanted her to do which is why he lets her die. That is why people victims of Amanda don't change as she just murders them whereas Jigsaw puts them in situations where they can change and escape.

So even though you might not like them they are quite clever with a very unique story.

Se7en is a superb film with an all star cast and superb acting, really worth a watch and certainly where Saw got it's idea from.
Also if you haven't seen Hostel, give it a watch. Sadly it tried selling on it's gore rather than being a very atmospheric and disturbingly believable cast.

SPOILER ALERT



The problem with Saw is that a lot of the situations are not escapable, making Jigsaw's whole aim utterly pointless, for example:

Saw 1
The fat guy is screwed in the room of razor wire. Unless he has wire cutters, there is no way you could get out of that room without getting trapped/tangled up by the razorwire which makes the time limit on the trapdoor unrealistic to escape.
Also the main guy who wakes up in a bath tub, again it's absurd to expect someone drowning to stay under the water and look for something in the dark.

Saw 2
This one wasn't too bad, but the story is dodgy at best. Jigsaw was punishing the cop for framing guilty criminals to bring them to justice, yet, isn't that what Jigsaw is doing? In other words, Jigsaws is made out to be a hypocrite.

Saw 3
My favourite actually. The only bullcrap is the final guy who couldn't be saved and I think there was something dodgy about the ending, but my memory is hazy over it.

Saw 4
A cop sets up a pendulum device the size of a large room with a blade on it. Last I checked, a single cop did not have the skill to construct such a device.
Plus, Jigsaw is punishing a cop for being to obsessive with pursing Jigsaw. Last I checked, that did not constitute a moral vice, so is hardly fair to put someone to a death trial, as such, over it. Also, isn't Jigsaw the obsessive one with thinking it's his God given task to punish people? Again, Jigsaw is made out to be a hypocrite and is now punishing anyone he wants to rather than the morally deplorable.

Saw 5
Four survivors/victims/retards are given the task to hide in 3 holes before a bomb goes off, meaning one person has to die. However, it is blatantly obvious that there is room for at least 3 people per hole, making the ensuing fight for survival ridiculous.
Not to mention, the ending, which I won't give away. That's the steaming turd on top of a rotten carcass of a film.

Saying that, with a bunch of mates and a few drinks, there are certainly much crappier movies to watch on Halloween. Though by no means are the films actually clever, they just pretend to be until you take a closer look, and then see them as just being somewhat hilarious gore-fests.

Yeah sadly I've seen both Hostel's and they were kinda terrible, in my opinion, just pure gore.

But in Saw I
the fat guy could get out of the Razor Wire, the whole point of the situaitons is that they're difficult and are going to deal you a lot of pain. But they are escapable, in Jigsaws games anyway. So there was an escape route it's jsut up to him to find it.

And it's basically the same principle with the drowning guy, he's in a situation that will challenge him so to escape he must do what he normally wouldn't which is the point of all the Games. To teach the value of life after risking it all in an almost impossible and challenging situation and escaping.

In Saw II

Jigaws punishing the cop for framing the criminals. If you listen to the story of the people they say they were all framed, the cop even admits to it when Jigsaw accuses him. That's why he's punishing him for taking away the lives of others, by framing them, just to make his own better. I think Saw II was my favourite actually.

In Saw III

I dunno who you mean by the last guy but all the people who wouldn't escape (like the woman chained up at the beginning) in that film are Amanda's victims. She made her Games about killing the person rather than making them escapable which is why Jigsaw tests her and lets her die.

The one person who could escape is the man who had his son killed looking for vengence. And he does surive. Except at the end he kills Jigsaw, thus killing his wife (the doctor) as her life and Jigswas were linked. So he fails the test and loses everything. His son (the reaon why he wanted vengance) his wife (the doctor) and his daughter (who Jigsaw revela is locked away just before he dies) And he's forced to go on living with nothing.

Everyone who dies because of that Vengance Guy dies because he couldn't get them out in time even though he'd forgiven them. It would've been my favourite if the ending hadn't been spoiled for me by mates. Oh well.

And I haven't seen 4 or 5 yet so I didn't read what you wrote about them. Don't wanna have em ruined y'know?

 

[ninja555]

Don't know, don't care, the series needs to jump under a train, but saw 6 isn't going to be anything special, saw the tv commercial for (muted obivously) and it was just a bunch of flicker pictures, so no it's not worth watching

 

[Cleverplane]

I was pointing out the glaring plotholes and stupidity in the Sci-Fi provided third installment; there's no way I'd pay actual money to see any others.

 

[bombchu]

The third one made me angry... so I will never see another one ever. It didn't develop the characters enough for me to care about anyone, especially when they died, and it ended up being more gross than scary... so, yeah. No. They don't get another chance.

I was pointing out the glaring plotholes and stupidity in the Sci-Fi provided third installment; there's no way I'd pay actual money to see any others.

Hah. We think alike.

 

[theultimateend]

Just because you don't know terminology doesn't mean you have to be rude.

"Slasher film is a sub-genre of the horror film genre typically involving a psychopathic killer stalking and killing a sequence of victims in a graphically violent manner, often with a cutting tool such as a chainsaw or scythe. Although the term "slasher" may be used as a generic term for any horror movie involving graphic acts of murder, the slasher as a genre has its own set of characteristics which set it apart from related genres like the splatter film. Writer Adam Rockoff, in an interview with Bryan Layne reported in Oddity Cinema, says: "I guess I could spout out some academic BS, but really, I think that as long as you have a killer who murders people with sharp objects, and a few thematic and/or stylistic conventions that have become staples of the genre? the final girl or the killer?s POV, etc.? you?ve got yourself a slasher film."[1]"

It is a shitty film yes (in my opinion) but it is not a slasher film. It is just gore porn. I actually enjoyed slasher films and this is nothing like them (without getting so ambiguous you could basically put action films into the same category, which you just basically did).

Yeah Im referencing Stephen King, Clive Barker & Doug Bradley & your citing wiki. God bless you & the rest of the passengers on the special bus.

Its a slasher film. People are slashed. Its primarily 'Gore' actually, but to soft to justify that nomenclature. Its nothing like a slasher film ? Erm..... Hmmkay so your saying its a horror which starts at 'The House on Haunted Hill' and ends at 'Paranormal Activity' , the sub-genus slasher starts with 'Sleepaway Camp' and or 'April Fools' and finishes with modern reiterations of 'Halloween'.

What film is Saw nearest to in terms of imagery, theme and execution 'Sleepaway Camp' or 'White Zombie'? I expect avoidance, crys of ad homeinen & general gimpishness as you avoid answering, so I wont hold my breath.

Actually I was just going to say you come off as an asshole.

Which I don't think falls under any of that.

A) Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, or was the last few times I've checked.
B) The guy they were quoting was Adam Rockoff "". He's not exactly Clive barker (by any stretch of the imagination) but he's not some random wiki person either.
C) I can't argue with your movie examples because I haven't seen them.

In general you are basically attacking me for being a blowhard yet your entire posts are nothing but. Pot, Kettle, and all that jazz.

If I were to say what it is nearest to I'd probably say something like Hostel. To me the entire genre of gore porn focuses primarily on gore, I realize that there has always been blood in horror movies, but frankly it has gotten to a point now where there isn't even any semblance of the slasher films. You just have a group of people getting tortured for an hour and a half with a small story slapped in. It may largely be the immobility of these films that makes me jump on the reclassification bandwagon.

In Halloween or titles like it you had a masked character running around literally stabbing the ever loving shit out of people. He wasn't using gadgets, the people were rarely subdued (unless you count showers), and in some way the character tends to have something supernatural about them.

Basically for some reason they can't die, maybe they are undead, maybe they are cursed, maybe these are a hellish child murderer with a clawed glove. In any case all these movies had a similar feel. Likewise the landscape in these movies tends to be broad, you have a campus, a large building, or even a town. There is very little gadgetry, most of the time the character used a knife or another simple blade implement. You were pretty sure that plenty of slashing would be going on in a slasher.

I suppose it doesn't really matter. You are likely to continue being an asshole, but I voiced my opinion. For the exception of you (and apparently a few horror personalities, albeit very very good ones) most people call these things gore porn. I tend to think that when the majority of people change the meaning of something it ends up sticking, just like saying you are gay these days rarely brings up thoughts of happiness as the likely meaning.

I've never heard someone until our little discussion here reference Saw as a slasher film. Does that mean it is bad? No. Even if I think so that has nothing to do with its genre. Just means it is different which frankly is just what happens. I'm sure if you did a poll on here or anywhere else and listed a set of genres and asked people which one Saw was you'd get a very small percentage saying slasher.