DVD Talk Forum
Page 3 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Saw VI (2009) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/562572-saw-vi-2009-a.html)

Matthew Chmiel 10-15-09 05:29 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Saw will continue to being a theatrical franchise until Lionsgate can't pull a profit on it anymore.

If Saw VI makes only $25 million, it's already pulled in a profit during it's theatrical release and is enough to move forward with Saw VII (even if it wasn't greenlit yet).

I'm curious to see how much the budget for Saw VII will be now with the added 3D element. I'm curious to see if they go the cheap 3D camera route like My Bloody Valentine 3D or use an upgraded system like Avatar or The Final Destination (a sequel that had double the budget of it's previous entry).

If I was Lionsgate, I'd be milking this franchise into the ground until I couldn't pull a single dollar from it anymore.

tylergfoster 10-22-09 06:57 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Can't wait, seeing VI at midnight.

Wrote a feature at Boxoffice: http://boxoffice.com/featured_storie...storic-run.php

EdTheRipper 10-22-09 08:29 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
The wife and I are heading out to see the first showing tomorrow morning...11:45am. I'm pretty psyched. This is the first of the series that I'm heading into blindly. Haven't even caught a trailer. Even the one linked here earlier. The hype about the big "twist" of the last one kind of ruined it for me a bit so I decided to avoid them this time out.

mdc3000 10-22-09 09:02 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
^I think EVERYONE is going into this one blind - the only trailer I saw had less than 30 seconds of actual footage and didn't even give any indication what the plot was about... even all the TV ads have very little substance to them.

Matthew Chmiel 10-22-09 09:09 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Isn't this like any of the last three films?

All I remember from Saw III was the one-minute theatrical trailer.

All I remember from Saw IV was the one-minute theatrical trailer that had maybe 15 seconds of actual footage from the film plus the opening scene put online (the "tug of war" trap).

All I remember from Saw V was the one-minute theatrical trailer that had maybe 5 seconds of actual footage.

At least with Saw VI we've had two theatrical trailers (one that had almost no footage) and portions of the "carousel" trap released online.

bmax 10-22-09 09:30 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
This is how I would rank them:

1.I
2.IV
3.III
4.II
5.V

I, IV, and III were all great. II was just ok. V kind of sucked, didn't really add much to the story at all.

tylergfoster 10-22-09 09:48 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Here are the trailers I remember for IV and V, for reference, plus the trailer for VI that I've seen most often.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MdLXjIu6UhM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MdLXjIu6UhM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/00cHLr90SgA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/00cHLr90SgA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FdRsM6MZOcQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FdRsM6MZOcQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Matthew Chmiel 10-23-09 04:14 AM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Just got back from the midnight screening.

I did not see this coming at all, but this may rank as my second favorite Saw film behind II.

This is what a Saw sequel should be: fast, fun, and highly entertaining; unlike say the previous two entries. Not only does it have some interesting traps and plenty of gore to go with it (the first trap had me cringing with how in detail the dismemberment got), but it answers more questions than creating them. Most of the story lines throughout the last three sequels are tied up while leaving an interesting way to close up the franchise if VII is indeed the last entry.

It also happens to be weirdly enough the most socially relevant entry in the Saw franchise with a hugely liberal stance. This time Jigsaw goes after conservatism with the health care industry and the mortgage crisis. As a liberal, I enjoy ninety minutes devoted to Republicans getting torn up by Jigsaw; but I'm sure wm_lopez will hate everything this movie has to offer with it's liberal slant.

tylergfoster 10-23-09 04:26 AM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
I thought it was interesting. Better than V, but it didn't really "get" me.

Matthew Chmiel 10-23-09 04:34 AM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by droidguy1119 (Post 9791398)
I thought it was interesting. Better than V, but it didn't really "get" me.
Honestly, anything could've been better than IV and V.

I really dug it for two reasons...

1. It brought the franchise back where it needed to be: fast-paced. It's similar to the way II is structured, giving equal amount of screen time to both our main storyline (Jigsaw) and the subplot of the person (or people) playing the game. As the subplot moves forward, more questions that were set-up in the last three sequels are answered to move the main storyline to it's ultimate finish line. The only questions asked were those during the film's final five minutes setting us up for VII.
Spoiler:
Except the question we have of what was in the yellow envelope Jill slid in the door.


2. It brought back one of the more interesting plot devices: the main person playing the game bringing judgement to others, similar to that of III. As annoying Jeff was, they actually tried to put some human qualities into William. Unlike V which tried to mimic the group scenario of II and failed, VI does a great job of taking elements of III and making them work for a second go around.

The question that I have is: what about the subplot of V? Will we get to know about the whole situation behind why the five people were in V's main trap to begin with or are we just ignoring that because V sucked as much as IV? One character makes a quick reference to it in the first act and that's all we get? I'd like some closure to that since they wasted 90 minutes of my life with that entry.

BravesMG 10-23-09 09:12 AM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel (Post 9791396)
It also happens to be weirdly enough the most socially relevant entry in the Saw franchise with a hugely liberal stance. This time Jigsaw goes after conservatism with the health care industry and the mortgage crisis. As a liberal, I enjoy ninety minutes devoted to Republicans getting torn up by Jigsaw; but I'm sure wm_lopez will hate everything this movie has to offer with it's liberal slant.
Awwww..... fucking balls, that's exactly what I don't want out of Saw. Even though I'm a conservative, I don't care who they're ripping, but reaching for some kind of actual social meaning after the whole enterprise is basically a cartoon at this point is depressing.

RichC2 10-23-09 10:05 AM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
I don't see how this can be worse than IV or V (or III for that matter) but then again, I've said that after III and got IV - which was unwatchable. V was a little better but still not particularly good.

This series died after II (which was fun, but not as "good" as the original), but I'll continue to watch em on video when I get bored. Sounds like they kind of got back on track with this entry, the social commentary bit sounds silly.

Also, I hope they go with the low budget 3D of My Bloody Valentine... why? Because it was 100 times better than the shitty 3D featured in Final Destination 3D - seriously, FD should have been a giveme in 3D but they absolutely blew the chance to do anything cool with it - and when it was used it was lousy. My Blood Valentine with it's 3d focal points on eyeballs, shotguns and midget clevage wins hands down.

fumanstan 10-23-09 10:19 AM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
The sound of social commentary is a huge turn off for me too, but i'm glad to hear that a lot of questions are answered. Hopefully i'll get a chance to rewatch some of the other ones on DVD before I go and catch this.

Matthew Chmiel 10-23-09 10:59 AM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 9791706)
Also, I hope they go with the low budget 3D of My Bloody Valentine... why? Because it was 100 times better than the shitty 3D featured in Final Destination 3D - seriously, FD should have been a giveme in 3D but they absolutely blew the chance to do anything cool with it - and when it was used it was lousy. My Blood Valentine with it's 3d focal points on eyeballs, shotguns and midget clevage wins hands down.
To clarify what I meant; My Bloody Valentine 3D went with the SI-2K cameras which made the entire production look like some made-for-television movie whereas The Final Destination used the Sony F23 camera similar to a set-up of what Cameron used for Avatar. TFD has a more "cinematic" look whereas MBV-3D does not.

While I do admit TFD was a weak sequel entry, my problem with MBV-3D is that it opens up on a bang and ends on a whimper. It has an exciting opening ten minutes and then is completely boring through the rest of the picture. TFD has the overall edge in my mind as it's a much quicker (and exciting) paced movie, but that's for another thread.

Awwww..... fucking balls, that's exactly what I don't want out of Saw. Even though I'm a conservative, I don't care who they're ripping, but reaching for some kind of actual social meaning after the whole enterprise is basically a cartoon at this point is depressing.
It's not as bad as it sounds, trust me. It doesn't get as in depth as say a Romero picture, but I felt it brightened the flick up slightly for being (somewhat) topical. It also helps that I'm liberal and any film that takes a swipe at conservatism is a-okay by me. :shrug:
Spoiler:
William, the trap's player, helps run an health insurance agency who constantly declines deathly ill patients of receiving surgeries or treatments. Who was one of the people he declined from maybe improving their health? Jigsaw himself.

The film's opening trap also goes after those who lend money on those who can't afford to pay it back on the hopes of getting refinanced or repossessed.

newginafets 10-23-09 12:11 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
So SAW VI is not the finale?

Rammsteinfan 10-23-09 12:21 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by newginafets (Post 9791938)
So SAW VI is not the finale?
No. it ties up alot of the story from III - V but leaves it open for possibly the last 2 entries. VII will be in 3D next Oct.

From what I hear of the end of VI, i am curious to see what happens next.

EdTheRipper 10-23-09 01:33 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Just got back from it. The wife and I liked it quite a bit. It was pretty gory and like Matthew Chmiel said, it was fast paced. It really kind of flew by. Personally, I really liked the scene where
Spoiler:
Hoffman's voice was revealed to be on the tape through the voice analysis. I knew what was coming and still grinned the whole time.

Shazam 10-23-09 01:34 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Just a casual follower of the movies; thought I-III were okay, I feel asleep during IV :lol:

tylergfoster 10-23-09 01:35 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
The hate-train on IV continues -- still my favorite Saw.

We'll see what I think if and when I go to see it again. Or, perhaps, like V, the film will be slightly re-edited on DVD, and the changes will be a huge improvement. I thought the things that were different from V in theaters and V on DVD were all done to hold the audience's hand, in case they weren't Saw fans like the people in this thread, and I was pleased the movie flowed more naturally on DVD.

Either way, I'm not saying I didn't like it. I definitely thought William was a good character.
Spoiler:
I kind of wish the kid hadn't pulled the trigger on William -- not just because I liked him, but because I feel like not enough people survive the traps in Saw films. I mean, I just pointed out that VI was my favorite, but I vaguely remember Bousman and Bent explaining on the commentary about an alternate version of the movie's conclusion that sounded even better than the existing version, in which Rigg makes the correct choice but it still ends up turning out badly. Of course, people paid to see splatter, so I guess they might've been mad if they hadn't gotten to see the guy get melted.

I was a little bothered by how on-the-nose the political references were. I didn't mind their presence, but they seemed more blatant and specifically timely than seemed necessary.

I was also somewhat bothered by Jill's involvement. In previous movies she seemed like a much nicer person, and I think I preferred that she had no part in the games. Admittedly, they found a fair amount of ways to justify it that I wasn't expecting, and they didn't make it the big twist, but I still wasn't totally on board with that either.

As a side note: did Shawnee Smith do something to her face? She looked a little weird to me when Hoffman was setting up The Rack trap. Maybe it was just that the filter turned her eyes completely black and whited out any lines in her face, but she just looked...different.

Matthew Chmiel 10-23-09 01:52 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by droidguy1119 (Post 9792112)
Spoiler:
I kind of wish the kid hadn't pulled the trigger on William -- not just because I liked him, but because I feel like not enough people survive the traps in Saw films. I mean, I just pointed out that VI was my favorite, but I vaguely remember Bousman and Bent explaining on the commentary about an alternate version of the movie's conclusion that sounded even better than the existing version, in which Rigg makes the correct choice but it still ends up turning out badly. Of course, people paid to see splatter, so I guess they might've been mad if they hadn't gotten to see the guy get melted.

I was a little bothered by how on-the-nose the political references were. I didn't mind their presence, but they seemed more blatant and specifically timely than seemed necessary.

I was also somewhat bothered by Jill's involvement. In previous movies she seemed like a much nicer person, and I think I preferred that she had no part in the games. Admittedly, they found a fair amount of ways to justify it that I wasn't expecting, and they didn't make it the big twist, but I still wasn't totally on board with that either.

As a side note: did Shawnee Smith do something to her face? She looked a little weird to me when Hoffman was setting up The Rack trap. Maybe it was just that the filter turned her eyes completely black and whited out any lines in her face, but she just looked...different.
Spoiler:
I think William was a dead man walking the moment he entered the final trap. Not only does it finalize the film's weird liberal slant, but both Jigsaw and the family William denied coverage to get their revenge for what William did to them in their first place. Unlike Jeff who practically killed everyone during his game, William does make some "better" decisions during his time with Jigsaw (keeping at least three survivors), but I think he was a goner the moment we see his interactions with John during the flashbacks.

I don't think we're done with Jill's involvement just yet. It feels that there has to be something bigger at play here. We know the reasoning for Hoffman still being in play, but I am still curious to where the reporter plays into the grand scheme of things. Where did she get the copy of the note that Hoffman wrote to Amanda?

Shawnee, to me, looked older and I felt they either tried to put too much make-up or work some CGI magic to get her to look like she did during I-III (which was four-to-seven years ago, yikes).


I do agree that V plays stronger on DVD and I prefer the changes made especially to the film's last death (makes it more climatic and sad as the person in question was one of the few likable characters in the franchise), but I haven't seen IV since it's theatrical release. I own all of them on DVD with the exception of IV.

OldBoy 10-23-09 01:53 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
is it a necessity to see V prior to VI?

Matthew Chmiel 10-23-09 01:55 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by scott1598 (Post 9792171)
is it a necessity to see V prior to VI?
Yes.

There are portions of V that play an integral key to answering questions in VI, but a majority of the events in V (i.e. the main trap) are only but referred to in one line of dialogue.

EdTheRipper 10-23-09 01:56 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Originally Posted by scott1598 (Post 9792171)
is it a necessity to see V prior to VI?
I'd definitely recommend seeing it first...it could only help.

DJariya 10-23-09 01:57 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
Going to try to see this either later today or tomorrow. If I don't see it today, I might pop in my V DVD to refresh my memory on what's been happening.

OldBoy 10-23-09 02:01 PM
Re: Saw VI (2009)
 
k. i've been holding off renting cause i heard it was just terrible and i have only liked 1 and maybe 3 (especially the end montage), but still am intrigued by what happens next.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.
Page 3 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.