SAW Off My Head NOW, Please!!!

I've heard that the Ontario police were having a problem with the creepy robo-calls the producers of Saw V sent to Canadian phones.

The radio ads were bad enough, but hearing those messages over the phone must be incredibly scary. 

Originally posted by Balboa6 There is a strong dramatic element to the Saw films. They're basically thrillers for thinkers. People bash them because they haven't seen them. They look at the poor marketing techniques--i.e. artwork for the dvds/some of the posters, and that's about the extent of it. I also get a kick out of people who bitch about the fact that the franchise has continued. I frequently hear and read people say that it should have ended at 3. So essentially it would be perfectly fine to end something right in the middle with all kinds of things up in the air. I'm sure nobody will have a clue who I'm talking about since those who bash the movies haven't even seen them but if they had ended it at 3 like most people say, we'd be asking What happened to Dr. Gordon, to Detective Matthews, to Jeff, to Jeff's daughter, what the significance was of numerous things--which were obviously important, but not explained yet. It's an extremely clever series the way the flashbacks are seamlessly edited in, providing a complex and intricate web of mystery and intensity. If only people could think outside the box and pay attention. But I guess that's too much to ask.

"Thinkers"? The "thinkers" you are talking about are teenagers who go see the movies for the sole purpose of seeing what creative and bloody ways the filmmakers thought up to kill people. The very first "Saw" movie might have been somewhat smart, but do we really need five sequels? That's right, part six is already in the works.

Originally posted by Michaels "Thinkers"? The "thinkers" you are talking about are teenagers who go see the movies for the sole purpose of seeing what creative and bloody ways the filmmakers thought up to kill people. The very first "Saw" movie might have been somewhat smart, but do we really need five sequels? That's right, part six is already in the works.

I think you're generalizing the audience too much. When I went to see Saw VI last year, I saw 2 old ladies and a woman (30-ish) in the screening room. I wouldn't call them teenagers. If anything, the audience is geared towards the adults and females because females is one of the main driving forces of horror films, believe it or not. And yes, I agree what that other poster said. Any horror series that are on their 4+ sequel would have poked fun at themselves now, like NOES, Final Destination, Child's Play, etc. Those films started out scary but slowly ended up trying to be funny. However, the Saw series actually stuck to the tone of the original throughout each sequel and I appreciate that.

Oh, and I made this analogy all of the time. The Saw series is like the tv show, LOST. I know many people who stopped watching LOST years ago because they thought it was stupid or because they lost interest. The same goes for Saw. The fans stayed with them because both have complex plots and make people think outside the box.

Here's a review of the film that explains what I'm trying to say:

On its sixth release, it would appear on the surface that there's not much differentiating the Saw Franchise from the other godfathers of Horror, the Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street pictures that have seen their numbers increased steadily over the decades. However, Saw does take things a step further by building intricate layers of mystery atop the gore, each film slowly assembling a piece of the puzzle that always manages to bring parts of the story full circle but at the same time construct a new mystery that promises to be revealed in future segments. No matter one's opinion on the film's horrifically gruesome content, there's no denying the noble effort to make this franchise something more, and even for audiences sick and tired of the excessive gore, there's still a morbid allure to the pictures if only to discover the next secret and admire the effort -- sometimes strong, sometimes feeble, but now, mostly, somewhere in the middle -- to keep the story going with a purpose other than to simply pour blood and spill guts all over the screen. Certainly, the Saw films sometimes lack in acting and scripting, but the production values are generally superb, and even if the story has a slightly jumbled feel, it's the effort even more so than the execution that earns the films a generally high mark. Saw VI continues with the tradition, unraveling through various flashbacks both to scenes in previous films and newly-revealed details of Kramer's past that keep the story fresh and engaging, and the film once again ends with plenty of revelations but also unearths new questions that beg to be answered in future installments.

Originally posted by Michaels Originally posted by Balboa6 There is a strong dramatic element to the Saw films. They're basically thrillers for thinkers. People bash them because they haven't seen them. They look at the poor marketing techniques--i.e. artwork for the dvds/some of the posters, and that's about the extent of it. I also get a kick out of people who bitch about the fact that the franchise has continued. I frequently hear and read people say that it should have ended at 3. So essentially it would be perfectly fine to end something right in the middle with all kinds of things up in the air. I'm sure nobody will have a clue who I'm talking about since those who bash the movies haven't even seen them but if they had ended it at 3 like most people say, we'd be asking What happened to Dr. Gordon, to Detective Matthews, to Jeff, to Jeff's daughter, what the significance was of numerous things--which were obviously important, but not explained yet. It's an extremely clever series the way the flashbacks are seamlessly edited in, providing a complex and intricate web of mystery and intensity. If only people could think outside the box and pay attention. But I guess that's too much to ask. "Thinkers"? The "thinkers" you are talking about are teenagers who go see the movies for the sole purpose of seeing what creative and bloody ways the filmmakers thought up to kill people. The very first "Saw" movie might have been somewhat smart, but do we really need five sequels? That's right, part six is already in the works.

Why do people always say that ("do we need this many sequels?"). It depends on what the sequels are being made for. If it's something like Friday the 13th where after the 4th Jason is resurrected in numerous ways and it completely destroys any legitimacy the series had, that's one thing and I can understand the annoyance. When it comes to the Saw franchise, it is a complex, sophisticated, intricate web that is being woven full of intrigue and mystery, much of which has been resolved, but the next two are going to bring the series to a final close. Yes the series is for thinkers. You see in order to understand it, you have to actually watch and pay attention. What amazes me is that if this were, say for example, an HBO series, people would have no problem whatsoever with it, but for some reason people can't handle film franchises. Apparently the continuation of a story is only acceptable if it's on the small screen. The story isn't over. What about that doesn't make sense to you and others like you? You don't just end a damn story with everything up in the air.

Originally posted by Michaels Originally posted by Balboa6 Why do people always say that ("do we need this many sequels?"). It depends on what the sequels are being made for. If it's something like Friday the 13th where after the 4th Jason is resurrected in numerous ways and it completely destroys any legitimacy the series had, that's one thing and I can understand the annoyance. When it comes to the Saw franchise, it is a complex, sophisticated, intricate web that is being woven full of intrigue and mystery, much of which has been resolved, but the next two are going to bring the series to a final close. Yes the series is for thinkers. You see in order to understand it, you have to actually watch and pay attention. What amazes me is that if this were, say for example, an HBO series, people would have no problem whatsoever with it, but for some reason people can't handle film franchises. Apparently the continuation of a story is only acceptable if it's on the small screen. The story isn't over. What about that doesn't make sense to you and others like you? You don't just end a damn story with everything up in the air. 1. You can count the number of movie series that were good after a third movie with one hand, "Saw" is not one of them. 2. Yes, if this was an HBO series, it would be good and praised, but it's not. It's just a studio cash cow. 3. Why do you people defend this? Why can't you see this for what it is: a studio who have found their golden eggs laying goose ... a movie that that can be cheaply made every year and has a mindlessly loyal fanbase that will flock to it no matter how bad it is. I'll said it before and I'll say it again, it's just beating a dead horse with a stick.

So it's okay for tv, but not movies. Interesting.

If it were bad I wouldn't flock to it. It is almost like watching one very long movie. It's all interconnected. It's not like "oh here's another one...just more people to put in some traps...duhhhh...." That is NOT what the films are about. If they were, I certainly would have lost interest a very long time ago. Probably after the first.

Originally posted by Michaels MWG, you can post all the positive reviews you can find and point out the two or three post teenage years people that were in the crowd all you want.

Umm....those were the only people that were watching it. If you want me to spoon feed you every information, I was trying to imply that a total of like 6 people were there when I saw it, including the 2 other people I saw it with.

This series has ran its course. There is no point to it any more.

There is a point. The plot lines are unresolved and there are plot lines I want to see how they resolve. You may not find it interesting but it's apparent a lot of other people do and it isn't fair that you have to bash the people who enjoy this movie to make your "point."

And you will keep on defending it, regardless if it gets good or bad reviews. Some things never change.

Regardless of how bad or good the movies turn out, I defend it for a completely different reason. Re-read my other post if you have to because I'm tired of you just "skimming" through my posts than actually reading them because half the time, your responses to my posts have nothing to do with what I said before.

I don't think movies are evil. Hollywood can make movies all they want, all I (and the other PAYING AND VOTING members of the Razzies) ask of them is to make GOOD, ORIGINAL movies, that yes, make money, but have reasoning and creativity to them. Is that all too hard to ask? But no, instead we get sequels to movies in which the originals only broke even, we get reboots and remakes to movies that were fine they way they were or simply don't need to be made. We get movies based off of amusement park rides and board games. I understand you LOVE movies, even if they only "entertain" you on some level, but we at the Razzies ask for something with more weight to in as an art form. I've said it before and I'll say it again, IMDb.com is more of the place for you where people will agree with your opinions.

As mentioned above, the main villain died in the third movie. That is a sign this series should have ended there, but we know Hollywood, they have to ride that gravy train until it derails, we they made three more sequels that they didn't need.

And I gotta agree with Michaels, I'll take "Paranormal Activity" over this series anyday. It was the best horror movie in decades because for the first time in who know when, it focused on what originally scared people: the unknown and people's own wild imaginations.