Saw IV?!?!?! (Possible Series Spoilers)

Okay, so up until recently, I hadn't seen any of the Saw films. The first one I saw about a week ago was Saw II, and I thought it was pretty good. Borrowed a copy of Saw from a friend of mine, thought that it was brilliant. Went back and watched Saw II and realized that there are actually quite a few flaws in it and it wasn't nearly as good now that I had seen the first film. Though it was still okay. I'm going to see Saw III as soon as I can, and I expect that it will be even more of a decline, though some people I have talked to think that it's a pretty good ending to the whole series.

Of course, with all the trilogies going around now-a-days, you'd expect them to stop there. But no. Apparently a fourth Saw film is going to be made soon. The date that is supposed to be released is October 26, this year. Just how in the hell do they plan to continue the story other than having Jeff going to save his daughter (even though I haven't seen the third film, I know what happens for the most part). Unless of course they go the prequel route, and that tends to not work out (Psycho IV comes to mind). And apparently the actor who plays Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) has publicly announced that he's already signed on for the fourth and fifth films of the installment! WTF? How far are they going to take this? I mean, there's only so many ways that you can gruesomely kill people.

So, are we just supposed to expect to see a Saw film every Halloween for the rest of our lives? From what I can gather, between the three current films and the comic book Saw: Rebirth, we know exactly why Jigsaw is doing what he does. We know how he finds his victims, and we know what it is that he wants out of the short amount of life he has left. There's nothing more that can possibly be added to the story. At this point it's just finding horrific ways to torture and kill people. That's not why the Saw franchise was created. Sure, it never spared us the gory details, but it also had the intelligence behind it. Something that I fear is going to soon be lost. The brilliance of Saw was already disappearing by the second film, and I'd imagine the third film loses even more of it, but now fourth and fifth films? What happened to the psychological thriller I fell in love with?

Honestly, I hate the series. If you can get through a single Saw movie without overdosing on Prozac, then congratulations -- you are a fully desensitized being. :p

After watching the original, I was disturbed for weeks. I still have the ocassional bout of depression brought on here and there by just remembering some of the scenes in that movie. Then, when I finally thought I was over it, a friend convinces me to watch Saw II. Suffice to say, I went through several more weeks of depression. I'm not going anywhere near Saw III...

You've gotta point there Aralith, because when i watched the second saw, i found it not as good as the first, and it was kind of lacking in plot; and was too short in it as well. Im looking forward to saw 3, but im hoping they dont mess this one up as well

BTW does anyone know when its going to be released in England?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazzard

You've gotta point there Aralith, because when i watched the second saw, i found it not as good as the first, and it was kind of lacking in plot; and was too short in it as well. Im looking forward to saw 3, but im hoping they dont mess this one up as well

BTW does anyone know when its going to be released in England?

---

My biggest problem with Saw II was that there was almost no character development. About all you knew was that all of them had been framed and arrested by the same cop and served time for it. Other than that, there just wasn't any drive for the characters, I thought. I had no idea why the characters were doing the things they were doing. The motivation was just lacking.

Oh, and about the release date thing. Saw III was recently released on DVD in the US. I don't know about the UK release, but I'd imagine that it's going to be pretty soon.

Hello Lion's Gate Entertainment. We're going to play a game. You stop the series now while it's on a high, or it'll end up like Rocky. Live or die, make your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Manus

Hello Lion's Gate Entertainment. We're going to play a game. You stop the series now while it's on a high, or it'll end up like Rocky. Live or die, make your choice.

---

Oh yes. There will be blood.

You know you don't HAVE to watch them, right? If you don't want more Saw sequels, then just don't watch them. It's pretty simple. :choc: You're probably not going to like Saw 3, you already know the ending of the movie, and knowing the ending of a Saw movie before you see it pretty much spoils the entire movie. But yeah, Saw 3 has more character development than Saw 2, so you're probably going to like the characters.

I didn't see any flaws in Saw 2, please elaborate.

I like Saw 1 and 2, but Saw 3 was way too gory for me. It could've saved itself on some of the gore and concentrated more on the psychological part. I don't really see how Jigsaw could've predicted how everything near the end would happen either, seems a bit far fetched.

Oh dear God no! Not another one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Levian

I didn't see any flaws in Saw 2, please elaborate.

---

Well, like I said, the whole character development thing. It's kind of a personal thing for me. I get into movies by caring about the characters. It makes me want to know what happens to them, so I can figure out what happens to the characters that I care about. If the characters don't have proper development, they seem less real and more detached from reality to me. For example, in Saw II I assume that the viewer is supposed to like Daniel (heck, he is kind of the innocent one and he was supposed to live the whole time anyways) but I didn't really care by the end. About the only character I cared about was Xavier, and by care I mean hate. His was the only death where I actually felt something.

Then there was the whole psychological aspect. In Saw, there was some sense of poetic justice in the way that Jigsaw's victims died. For example, Paul was chosen by Jigsaw because he cut himself (whether for suicide or attention is unknown, but attention is the assumed). The irony was that if he wanted to live he would have to "cut himself again." Mark "burned" a lot of people with his act, and so as he attempted to escape, he had to make sure not to actually burn himself. Dr. Gordon always told people that they were going to die from something or another. In his game, he was supposed to be the cause of death. Amanda had to kill her former drug dealer (who was himself paralyzed from an opiate overdose, even more poetic justice) to break free from the bondage of drugs and appreciate life.

In Saw II, this didn't happen nearly as much. I think Obi and Xavier were the only two who had proper traps set up, and Xavier didn't even get to do his task. He had some innocent do it (this was part of the character development. He would have people use drugs and now to escape his poetic justice, he used someone again. This was one of the reasons why I cared about Xavier). Also, some of the shock was lacking in Saw II. We already knew who the killer was and why he was doing the things he was. Which leads to another flaw. In the first film, he only ever had one or two people in one trap at a time and only in one room. This made everything feel much more cramped and in turn, made the atmosphere much more intense.

In the second film, there were seven (I think, maybe eight) people that were wandering around an entire house. The personal connection wasn't there because there were too many people for you to care about all of them, and, like I said earlier, it was already hard enough to care for them with little plot development. Also, some of the intensity was gone because they weren't in a single room any more. They were in a much more open house. Those are just a few of the flaws that I noticed throughout the film.

Oh, I thought you were talking about plot flaws. I wouldn't really call those things flaws, though, since those qualities in a movie is up to everyones personal taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aralith

In Saw II, this didn't happen nearly as much. I think Obi and Xavier were the only two who had proper traps set up, and Xavier didn't even get to do his task. He had some innocent do it (this was part of the character development. He would have people use drugs and now to escape his poetic justice, he used someone again. This was one of the reasons why I cared about Xavier). Also, some of the shock was lacking in Saw II. We already knew who the killer was and why he was doing the things he was. Which leads to another flaw. In the first film, he only ever had one or two people in one trap at a time and only in one room. This made everything feel much more cramped and in turn, made the atmosphere much more intense.

---

Yes, there definitely should've been more personal traps in Saw 2, but for all we know there probably were. There were 8 syringes in the house, and we got to see 5 of them, so there's probably 3 hidden traps we didn't get to see in the house. But everyone we saw was personalized though, so there's every reason to believe the rest was too. Laura's death was really lame, though. What a useless character. The trap Addison was in was probably personalized too, though. She threw away the tape and just went for it, so it could've been for anyone really. I'm going to guess it was for a cutter. Maybe Amanda?

All of the Saw movies has been really rushed, though. Half a year scriptmaking and two weeks or so of shooting. But I'm glad they do it that way or the twist would be bound to get leaked on the internet somehow.

I really hope Saw 4 turns out better than Saw 3.

Actually, according to some of the interviews with James Wan and Leigh Whannel, the Razor Box Trap was originally intended for Gus, the guy who was killed by the Magnum Eyehole, but I'm not sure why. Because Gus dies so early on, it is never really certain what his past was like or why he was there. But I'd imagine that you're right and that he was a cutter or something like that. The irony of the Razor Box Trap, is that if Addison has just walked to the other side of the box, she would have found a padlock with a keyhole which would have opened the box, allowing for her to safely retrieve the antidote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Levian

I really hope Saw 4 turns out better than Saw 3.

---

Like I said, I haven't seen three, but from the sound of it, I hope the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Manus

Hello Lion's Gate Entertainment. We're going to play a game. You stop the series now while it's on a high, or it'll end up like Rocky. Live or die, make your choice.

---

Rocky Balboa was awesome, go die in a ditch

You're surprised a horror movie is going past 3 films? How many Nightmare on Elm Street films were there? Child's Play? Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aralith

Sure, it never spared us the gory details, but it also had the intelligence behind it.

---

The intelligence of what? 'Cause I think a small colony of tapeworms could come up with something smarter than Saw.

Nutcases going out teaching people "justice" or to appreciate life or whatever is not new. Neither is it big, clever, or valid.

I hate that trilogy. My sadistic sisters turned it on and held me down to watch the third one, I have a horrific fear od gore and I fainted, so no, I want no more.

I don't really see how they could continue the same storyline, considering the fact that (SPOILER)everybody died in Saw 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aralith

Sure, it never spared us the gory details, but it also had the intelligence behind it.

---

The intelligence of what? 'Cause I think a small colony of tapeworms could come up with something smarter than Saw.

Nutcases going out teaching people "justice" or to appreciate life or whatever is not new. Neither is it big, clever, or valid.

---

I know that it's not exactly the newest thing to hit the horror/psychological thriller genre, but Saw presented some of the older ideas about that genre in a new light. Plus, as I said, it brought the idea of gore to a whole new level. Except it wasn't pointless. At least in the first film it wasn't. In Saw, all the violence and gore that was witnessed directly added to the storyline and the development of the characters, whereas in previous gory films, it might have been just for the sake of being gory. Sure there was some necessary gore, but Saw was one of the few films I have seen where pretty much all of the gore was directly related to the plot. Because everything that they had to do to themselves was a perfect irony of what they've done either to themselves or other people in the past. It was poetic in that sense, and added an edge to the film that I definitely liked.

Well put, Aralith.

I do think the Saw movies are smart, if you look past the gore. There's not really much gore either imo. I for one did not see the ending of Saw 1 and Saw 2 coming. Very clever thought out, and I do like my horrors clever.

Not gonna defend Saw 3, though. Too much focus on gore and not a very good ending.

I could have weaved a less trite tale when I was 11 years old. In fact I'm fairly sure I did.

Random acts of horrendously violent vigilantism are still not clever, original, or valid. Jigsaw is a childish and petty person (people), pretty much the same as Paul in the first movie, except you know, Paul wasn't a murdering lunatic.

The fear of some lunatic who will "punish" me for some imagined or petty transgression is not a difficult thing to elicit. Therefore I cannot see anything of note in doing as much; no matter how much you may read into the gore all I see is a teenage masturbatory exercise in being as unpleasant as possible, which had a plot added for the purpose of trying to hide this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Random acts of horrendously violent vigilantism are still not clever, original, or valid. Jigsaw is a childish and petty person (people), pretty much the same as Paul in the first movie, except you know, Paul wasn't a murdering lunatic.

---

You're right, random horrendously violent vigilantism is not clever, but I didn't see any of that in Saw, though. Seriously, what's the worst gore in Saw 1? We don't see Gordon Sawing off his foot, we don't see the guy in the dark cellar die, and when there's gore in a scene most we see is blur, and fast clips. The goriest thing I saw in Saw 1 was Amanda holding some intestines, and if that's too much then CSI is too much. But yeah, if you're referring to stuff that happened that we didn't see, then I would say Saw 1 is still a piece of cake compared to many action/thriller/horror movies made in modern age. Blood Diamonds, to pick one out of the blue.

I agree Jigsaw is a childish and petty person, that's really a part of the movies. If he wasn't, then there would be no Saw.

However, the gore is not what I like about Saw. I'd like it more if it had less gore. Some stuff is just better left out in the movie. I actually like Saw 1 and 2 for the same reason I like Lost. It's clever. I found the part where we find out Zep was not the murderer but yet another victim to be a very clever part, I did not see it coming, and very few people did. and then the guy on the floor coming back to life. Or the ending of Saw 2 where Daniel was locked up in the safe all along, and all the monitors being tapes and not live. Jiggy told Matthews his son would turn up in a safe place if he would just be patient. He gave a big clue, without making it obvious. Clever, imo. If you wrote something like this at the age of 11 I'd buy it, honey. :mog:

I could see your point if you were talking about Saw 3, though.

eeew !
after that brain surgery in the 3rd part I have a doubt that I would not continue watching the coming 4th & 5th ones.

I loved Saw II
I hate Saw III
:mad:

Yeah, ugh. That was so unnecessary. I did not need to see that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Manus

Hello Lion's Gate Entertainment. We're going to play a game. You stop the series now while it's on a high, or it'll end up like Rocky. Live or die, make your choice.

---

Rocky Balboa was awesome, go die in a ditch

---

Rocky XXXVIII wasn't

Jigsaw's Dead, End of series for me :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Random acts of horrendously violent vigilantism are still not clever, original, or valid. Jigsaw is a childish and petty person (people)

---

Have you missed my entire point? The violence and gore was not random, but rather well thought out and purposely executed in an excercise in irony. An irony which I thought was performed intelligently, poetically, and nearly perfectly.

Quote:

---

The fear of some lunatic who will "punish" me for some imagined or petty transgression is not a difficult thing to elicit.

---

Petty? Um... last I checked, trying to slit one's own wrists (whether for attention or with the intent of suicide) is not petty. Now, it is rather petty for someone to think that they are above all this and try to teach them lessons through gore and violence. Yes, that is petty, and I'm not denying it. Jigsaw was a petty person, but... that was kind of what he was supposed to be. He thought that just because he had cancer and had lived throught trying to commit suicide that he was somehow superior to all these people. It was one of his many flaws.

It's what made him such a great character. As much as he knew that his actions would hurt and kill people, he really believed that he was doing it for a good cause. It made him a very believable villain, because he didn't think that what he was doing was evil, which is what evil people in real life think (Hitler comes to mind). This made Jigsaw a much more real person to me, making him someone that I cared about. And, as I mentioned before, the minute that I care about a character (whether that care manifests in fondness or hatred) I can get drawn into what their doing and why they're doing it and believe it.