Noone should be shocked by this news:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...goryid=13&cs=1

I'm surprised that they re-hired Hackl to direct even though he didn't direct VI. I wish they would have hired some different writers instead of Dunstan and Melton.

I am surprised that they announced it so early.

Wasn't Bell signed on up to VII anyway?

I'm really disappointed that Dunstan and Melton are getting a fourth shot with this franchise despite IV and V being the weakest entries up to this point.

Hackl was supposed to direct VI, but had to back out due to family situations.

V was the lowest grossing movie of the entire franchise in the U.S., but still made over 113M with worldwide box office.

If VI makes between $50-60M in the U.S., I think Lionsgate will be extremely pleased, especially since the budget for all 6 films has never exceeded $10M.

Actually, Saw V still made more than the first. Not that much, barely a million dollars, but the first is still the lowest grossing entry. Saw II still ranks the highest domestically whereas Saw III ranks the highest with worldwide gross.

While I do believe quite a few bailed out of the franchise after Saw III; I know a lot of people who pretty much called it quits after Saw IV. I've seen every one at midnight since Saw II and Saw IV, by far, is the worst entry of the entire franchise. It didn't provide the fun the first three films had and was just slow, tedious, boring, and it was the first to start to stretch a premise that could be done in one film across three.

Saw V was slightly better, but still not anywhere near the quality of the first three. I'll be there for Saw VI, but expectations are very low after the past two efforts. I'm not expecting much and the red band clip that was just released for Saw VI didn't do much for me.

I'd still argue that Saw II is the best, but I know most would disagree.

Lionsgate will continue to pump these out until they start to gross under $25-30 million domestically.

Guess this means Xage will have more Saw DVD's to add to his collection.

I really wish they would stop after VI and end the story as is, but props to Lionsgate. I would also milk the franchise until the franchise stops being profitable.

Even if the films themselves stop to pull a profit theatrically, Lionsgate would be stupid not to continue the franchise and send it direct-to-video. The conversion from film to HD would save them millions instantly.

i thought 6 was the end =( i was pumped for the finale...

Yeah, I was kind of hoping they would tie up the story with part 6. Oh well, even though the quality has declined i'm fine with seeing more of these as long as the story makes sense and they start finding some resolutions to the characters.

Isn't this franchise losing money as it goes on and on?

When your production budget isn't over $10 mil, and your films earn at least $50 mil, and the dvds sell over a million copies, HOW could you be losing money?

Naw, really low budget movies that pull in more than they should.

It will continue Straight-to-video years after they stop making theatrical movies.

Even if the budget for Saw VI is $15 million, it'll still make more than that in its opened weekend. And even if it barely doubles the opening, combine that with the worldwide gross and you still have a big hit.

I do believe that Saw VII will be the one to push it too far, though. I wouldn't be surprised if it costs $25 million, opens with barely $20 million, and doesn't even manage to double that #.

They are not going to spend $25M to produce Saw VII. That would be very stupid business by the producers and Lionsgate. Haven't you noticed that they never cast any big name stars in these films. Mostly B and C List actors. I mean Julie Benz from Dexter was probably the most well known actor in the last film other than Tobin Bell. Also the films are shot inexpensively in Canada.

Yeah, I don't think there's any reason that Lionsgate would double the budget on these movies unless they were certain they would get that sort of return back.

The finale happened at the end of Saw III and it was awesome. Series should have ended there.

I'm sure I'll still see a Saw 7, 12, 16... whatever. They're entertaining, if nothing else. I do wish they didn't bring back the same writers, though. They really suck.

I'm still in for the Blu-ray.

Oh God!

I'm not surprised by this.

I would agree with you. II is still my favorite.

This is kind of dissapointing. The last couple of movies have dragged and I hoped VI would tie up all the looses ends.

In a recent article on BD I remember Tobin saying that they were at least going to 8 Saw films and wouldn't count out a 9th installment. Announcing that number 7 has been greenlit is no surprise.

Try to keep in mind the budget for the Saw movies have doubled twice. The original cost over $1 million, the second cost $4 million, the third cost $10 million, the fourth cost over $10 million, and the fifth cost about $11 million.

So maybe the franchise won't go up to $25 million, but at a certain point, the studio is going to try to think of something novel to kick-start attendance, like Jason Takes Manhattan or Freddy's Dead, and when they do, it's going to cost a little more money. By the time they get to that, it might be a $17 million budget against a $30 million domestic gross.

I would be shocked if Saw ended with less than fifteen movies after all is said and done.

I say bring 'em on

Man, I really got to get on it; I've only seen the first 3 movies.

I've been falling behind, hell I though they were only on Saw V now.

Saw 3 is my favorite, still haven't seen 5 but will. I say keep it going. We haven't had a franchise like this in a while.