85 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

Spoiler

If they're setting Dr. Gordon up to be another Jigsaw accomplish (as it appeared in part 6 with Jill dropping that tape off at the Doctor's Office) than I'll be pissed.

Personally...

Spoiler

I think he'll just be alive, but in Witness Protection, or hiding, or something; they can't just leave a plot thread from all the way back in the first film dangling.

[JimmyBond]

I don't know. I thought it was pretty much implied that he was dead. I mean he cut off his foot and lost a lot of blood.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I don't know. I thought it was pretty much implied that he was dead. I mean he cut off his foot and lost a lot of blood.

Well, you know how continuity is with the Saw series; sometimes it's ridiculously consistent, sometimes it's chock-full-o'-holes...

[tdalton]

It doesn't really matter to me if this turns out to be true. The only reason that they're even considering this is that its a last ditch effort to get the fans back into the theaters for this franchise that is now creatively at a dead end. It would make zero sense to go this direction, but it would satisfy the fanboys enough to get them enough money to justify SAW VIII, even though there's no reason to even be making this sequel. I won't be seeing the film either way, as I honestly don't care about the franchise anymore after the utterly abysmal SAW VI.

With that said, I don't see it happening.

Spoiler

Cary Elwes sued Lionsgate and the SAW producers after the first film for not being paid what he thought he should have been, so I can't imagine that they're on good enough terms with each other for him to reprise his role as Dr. Gordon.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, what do you find so abysmal about the last Saw movie?

[tdalton]

Well, what do you find so abysmal about the last Saw movie?

It failed in virtually every possible way imaginable. First, they promised us that the storyline would be, at least in some respects, resolved. It wasn't. The acting in SAW VI is horrendous. Yes, I'm quite aware that acting has never been the strong point of the series, but it's never been as bad as it was in SAW VI, where it reached a new low. Even the principle actors seemed disinterested in what was going on. The traps have become stale at this point, and the constant plot device of

Spoiler

having the "hero" of the film (i.e. the main test subject) fail at the end has gotten extremely tiresome.

The only good moment of SAW VI was the final shot of the film, which was a cool moment that is about the only thing interesting me in the next installment. With that said,

Spoiler

simply a promo still of Hoffman will satisfy my curiosity for SAW VII, as the only thing I'm really interested in is how he'll look in the next film, given that his face has been disfigured quite significantly.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, what do you find so abysmal about the last Saw movie?

It failed in virtually every possible way imaginable. First, they promised us that the storyline would be, at least in some respects, resolved. It wasn't. The acting in SAW VI is horrendous. Yes, I'm quite aware that acting has never been the strong point of the series, but it's never been as bad as it was in SAW VI, where it reached a new low. Even the principle actors seemed disinterested in what was going on. The traps have become stale at this point, and the constant plot device of

Spoiler

having the "hero" of the film (i.e. the main test subject) fail at the end has gotten extremely tiresome.

The only good moment of SAW VI was the final shot of the film, which was a cool moment that is about the only thing interesting me in the next installment. With that said,

Spoiler

simply a promo still of Hoffman will satisfy my curiosity for SAW VII, as the only thing I'm really interested in is how he'll look in the next film, given that his face has been disfigured quite significantly.

Did you see the after-credits scene at the end of the director's cut? Might be an interesting new plot turn:

[tdalton]

I hadn't seen that before, but I don't think it'll end up being a new plot twist. I'm pretty sure that

Spoiler

the girl in the video is the daughter of Jeff from SAW III, who we see Hoffman taking out of the building in either SAW IV or SAW V (can't remember which at the moment), and I'm pretty sure he turns her over to police custody and then I'm assuming that she enters the foster system from there. I can't see them bringing her character back, especially since we never really saw that particular character developed in any way whatsoever.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, though. I'd had no idea that there was a sequence after the credits.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, it certainly plays into the whole

Spoiler

"who knows?" "everyone" concept from the last movie...

[tdalton]

Well, it certainly plays into the whole

Spoiler

"who knows?" "everyone" concept from the last movie...

Maybe. I think it'll be interesting to see if

Spoiler

Perez and Erickson were bluffing when they told Hoffman that "everyone" knew his secret. If they can use that premise to take SAW VII back to something more along the lines of the cat-and-mouse game of SAW V, then I'd be more inclined to give it a chance.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Maybe. I think it'll be interesting to see if

Spoiler

Perez and Erickson were bluffing when they told Hoffman that "everyone" knew his secret. If they can use that premise to take SAW VII back to something more along the lines of the cat-and-mouse game of SAW V, then I'd be more inclined to give it a chance.

I guess... but, judging from the responses on IMDb, that didn't go over so well with the unwashed masses, now, did it?

[tdalton]

Maybe. I think it'll be interesting to see if

Spoiler

Perez and Erickson were bluffing when they told Hoffman that "everyone" knew his secret. If they can use that premise to take SAW VII back to something more along the lines of the cat-and-mouse game of SAW V, then I'd be more inclined to give it a chance.

I guess... but, judging from the responses on IMDb, that didn't go over so well with the unwashed masses, now, did it?

I know that the direction that SAW V took the series didn't go over well with the majority of the series' fans, which is mostly why I think that I'm just going to end my viewing of the franchise with this last entry. These films are going to keep getting worse and worse until they become (or maybe we're already at this point) parodies of the earlier films in the series, when the quality of the films was actually at a reasonably respectable level. That's not the case anymore, as the quality of the films has gotten, more or less, worse with each outing. Even Saw V isn't a great film by any stretch, but I at least respected the attempt to try something new, and I did think that it was an infinitely superior effort than just about everything else that has come in the franchise post-Saw II.

I do think, however, that if they could combine the narrative style of Saw V with a story that actually had some meat on its bones, then the fan reaction might be a bit different. I think that the true problem with Saw V was that they treated it as a bridge film from Saw IV to Saw VI rather than treating it as a fully realized film. I think that if they were to attempt another cat-and-mouse film, but this time one with a much meatier narrative, then the results could be different.

But, like I said earlier, a still of

Spoiler

Hoffman's appearance post-Saw VI

would 100% satisfy my curiosity regarding Saw VII.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that the true problem with Saw V was that they treated it as a bridge film from Saw IV to Saw VI rather than treating it as a fully realized film. I think that if they were to attempt another cat-and-mouse film, but this time one with a much meatier narrative, then the results could be different.

Well, Saw IV, in and of itself, was a bridge film, wasn't it? It took the viewer from "Oh, Jigsaw's dead and Jeff Reinhart's screwed" to "Oh, crap! Jigsaw's got another apprentice! Totes did not see that coming!", all the while tying up loose ends by conveniently disposing of them (such as Det. Eric Matthews and the previously-mentioned Mr. Reinhart) and raising new questions about previous events (such as the whole business with Jigsaw's widow); it pretty much served as a bridge between Saw III and Saw V, because, without it, the plot of the latter film would be completely incomprehensible when laid alongside the former.

Still, I have a feeling they're going to keep Hoffman's appearance a secret, at least until the first trailers hit...

[DamnCoffee]

The Saw trailers don't give much away, anyway. In fact, I feel that the franchise is poorly marketed.

[tdalton]

I think that the true problem with Saw V was that they treated it as a bridge film from Saw IV to Saw VI rather than treating it as a fully realized film. I think that if they were to attempt another cat-and-mouse film, but this time one with a much meatier narrative, then the results could be different.

Well, Saw IV, in and of itself, was a bridge film, wasn't it? It took the viewer from "Oh, Jigsaw's dead and Jeff Reinhart's screwed" to "Oh, crap! Jigsaw's got another apprentice! Totes did not see that coming!", all the while tying up loose ends by conveniently disposing of them (such as Det. Eric Matthews and the previously-mentioned Mr. Reinhart) and raising new questions about previous events (such as the whole business with Jigsaw's widow); it pretty much served as a bridge between Saw III and Saw V, because, without it, the plot of the latter film would be completely incomprehensible when laid alongside the former.

Still, I have a feeling they're going to keep Hoffman's appearance a secret, at least until the first trailers hit...

True. I guess if I really think about it, I could really consider all of the post-Saw II films to be bridge films, but the problem is that they're not leading anywhere (or it doesn't seem so, as it seems that every time we get close to any form of a resolution, new questions just pop up that are asked for the sole purpose of keeping the now razor-thin storyline going). I do think, though, that Saw V is a bit more of a bridge movie than the the two that preceded it. There's little story other than Hoffman and Strahm basically trying to prove that the other is the new Jigsaw. While there's not much story there, I do respect the approach to scale back on the gore and at least attempt a new direction for the franchise, and based on that alone, I consider V to be the best film in the post-Saw II franchise.

I think that what the series really needs if it has any hopes of regaining any form of respectability is to start to have the films be a bit more self contained. It's OK to explain things in previous films, but when more than half of a film's running time is done in flashback, then there's something wrong. I'd almost say that I'd rather see a SAW film that features no flashback and no explanation of prior events than one like Saw VI, which is more or less like one of those TV show episodes that exists only to show clips from prior episodes.

And, I do agree that they'll probably keep Hoffman a secret heading into Saw VII.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that what the series really needs if it has any hopes of regaining any form of respectability is to start to have the films be a bit more self contained. It's OK to explain things in previous films, but when more than half of a film's running time is done in flashback, then there's something wrong. I'd almost say that I'd rather see a SAW film that features no flashback and no explanation of prior events than one like Saw VI, which is more or less like one of those TV show episodes that exists only to show clips from prior episodes.

Well, considering Saw VII is probably going to be the last Saw film, they'll probably, at least, make the ending self-contained; it'll be hard to do the same for the beginning, however, as most fans are expecting some measure of resolution from the closing minutes of Saw VI.

[tdalton]

I think that what the series really needs if it has any hopes of regaining any form of respectability is to start to have the films be a bit more self contained. It's OK to explain things in previous films, but when more than half of a film's running time is done in flashback, then there's something wrong. I'd almost say that I'd rather see a SAW film that features no flashback and no explanation of prior events than one like Saw VI, which is more or less like one of those TV show episodes that exists only to show clips from prior episodes.

Well, considering Saw VII is probably going to be the last Saw film, they'll probably, at least, make the ending self-contained; it'll be hard to do the same for the beginning, however, as most fans are expecting some measure of resolution from the closing minutes of Saw VI.

Hopefully it's the final SAW film, but surely that will change if, somehow, Saw VII actually makes some money at the box office. There were plans for Saw VII-Saw IX at one point, but those were apparently scrapped after the disappointing box office for Saw VI. If the next film makes some money, though, then I bet they'll turn right around and keep the series going. I honestly believe that the only reason Saw VI didn't perform well was because it was a terrible movie, much worse than anything that had preceded it. Had it been a better movie, then I think that it could have held its own against Paranormal Activity.

I doubt, however, that we'll get any kind of total resolution in Saw VII, though. After all, there were promises of some kind of resolution in Saw VI, and that went completely unfulfilled.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I doubt, however, that we'll get any kind of total resolution in Saw VII, though. After all, there were promises of some kind of resolution in Saw VI, and that went completely unfulfilled.

Exactly, but that's kind of been a unifying thread between the Saw movies, whether they be good or bad; hell, even the first movie had Jigsaw getting away in the end...

[tdalton]

I doubt, however, that we'll get any kind of total resolution in Saw VII, though. After all, there were promises of some kind of resolution in Saw VI, and that went completely unfulfilled.

Exactly, but that's kind of been a unifying thread between the Saw movies, whether they be good or bad; hell, even the first movie had Jigsaw getting away in the end...

Agreed on that being a unifying thread in the films.

I'm not talking about any promise that the films themselves may have made within their own content that there would be a resolution coming at the end of the film, if that's what you're getting at (and my apologies if I'm misunderstanding your point ). There had been strong suggestions from the producers (or others connected with the film) through various things that they had said and through the promotional items for the film that said something to the effect of the viewer would finally understand Jigsaw's game as it was said to be coming "full circle" in Saw VI. That's where part of my disappointment for Saw VI comes from, as none of the resolution that was seemingly promised by people and other media outside of the content of the film alluded to.

[Mr. Blofeld]

There had been strong suggestions from the producers (or others connected with the film) through various things that they had said and through the promotional items for the film that said something to the effect of the viewer would finally understand Jigsaw's game as it was said to be coming "full circle" in Saw VI. That's where part of my disappointment for Saw VI comes from, as none of the resolution that was seemingly promised by people and other media outside of the content of the film alluded to.

I think they had that on the advertising, in fact...

Granted, I guess the resolution is mostly through the whole issue of Amanda's letter and the mysterious box from Saw V, as well as explaining some of Jill's motivation after Jigsaw's death... but, then, I'm assuming you expected some larger resolution; what sort, specifically? I'm curious.

[tdalton]

There had been strong suggestions from the producers (or others connected with the film) through various things that they had said and through the promotional items for the film that said something to the effect of the viewer would finally understand Jigsaw's game as it was said to be coming "full circle" in Saw VI. That's where part of my disappointment for Saw VI comes from, as none of the resolution that was seemingly promised by people and other media outside of the content of the film alluded to.

I think they had that on the advertising, in fact...

Granted, I guess the resolution is mostly through the whole issue of Amanda's letter and the mysterious box from Saw V, as well as explaining some of Jill's motivation after Jigsaw's death... but, then, I'm assuming you expected some larger resolution; what sort, specifically? I'm curious.

I expected to find out what Jigsaw's grand scheme was, which was what I gathered the the resolution would be about, given the his game comes "full circle" lines that were plastered everywhere. I honestly didn't care much about finding out what was in Amanda's letter or what was in the box (I think that the franchise could benefit from leaving a few things left unanswered), but I was curious to find out what the bigger point behind Jigsaw's master plan was. If it was simply to go after the health care industry, which was the point of Saw VI, then that really renders Saw III through Saw V pointless, as he was basically going after the police department in those films.

I also would have liked to have found out what significance the real estate scheme from Saw V had. The people responsible for that scheme played a large part in the fifth film, and the way that things were left there, with Erickson finding Julie Benz's character at the end of the film, made it seem like that was actually something important. I wouldn't imagine that they would have brought in someone as famous as Julie Benz (or at least "famous" in relation to the actors they've generally brought to the series since the first film) only to have her play what, at this point, amounts to a pointless character.

[JimmyBond]

I also would have liked to have found out what significance the real estate scheme from Saw V had. The people responsible for that scheme played a large part in the fifth film, and the way that things were left there, with Erickson finding Julie Benz's character at the end of the film, made it seem like that was actually something important. I wouldn't imagine that they would have brought in someone as famous as Julie Benz (or at least "famous" in relation to the actors they've generally brought to the series since the first film) only to have her play what, at this point, amounts to a pointless character.

Well they do explain the significance of that (taken from a line cut from the Saw V script as matter of fact). Straham was the one investigating that case, and the fact that all five got away with it was used to frame him as the Jigsaw accomplish.

Granted that bit of info should have been left in Saw V, as it does give the games in that film a reason, it sort of validates Saw V in my eyes. But you shouldn't have to wait for the sequel to clear up something that should have been in the previous film in the first place.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Granted that bit of info should have been left in Saw V, as it does give the games in that film a reason, it sort of validates Saw V in my eyes. But you shouldn't have to wait for the sequel to clear up something that should have been in the previous film in the first place.

True... but we had to wait for Saw II and IV to get Jigsaw's motivation, didn't we?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Confirmation of the above: http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=65461

[JimmyBond]

I suppose I take back what I said earlier. I'm actually kind of interested to see where they go with this now that it's been confirmed.

[tdalton]

I can't say that I'm particularly interested in where they go with this. It's most likely going to be a cameo in a flashback anyway, and it feels like they're just pandering to a portion of the fanbase because the franchise has become so stale that this is the only way to get people into theater.

[Mr. Blofeld]

The bit about Sean Patrick Flannery being cast interests me, as well; don't think I've heard of him in anything big since the Young Indiana Jones series wrapped in the mid-'90s...

[Safari Suit]

The bit about Sean Patrick Flannery being cast interests me, as well; don't think I've heard of him in anything big since the Young Indiana Jones series wrapped in the mid-'90s...

I think today more people would be familiar with him from the Boondock Saints movies.

[Mr. Blofeld]

The bit about Sean Patrick Flannery being cast interests me, as well; don't think I've heard of him in anything big since the Young Indiana Jones series wrapped in the mid-'90s...

I think today more people would be familiar with him from the Boondock Saints movies.

Neither of those two films did very well, did they? They weren't a big project; believe you me, Young Indiana Jones was a big project.

[Safari Suit]

The first film was a huge cult hit in the truest sense of the term (which is why the second one was made some ten years later). I suspect more people in the target audience for Saw would have seen the first film than would have seen an episode of Young Indie. I could be way off admittedly, I've no idea how well the YI Box sets sold for example.