|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#1
10-31-2006, 11:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
*Saw 3 SPOILERS* Well shit the bed, Saw IV
Shock! "Saw" No. 4 set for release next Halloween
Tuesday October 31 3:19 AM ET Perhaps inevitably, the record-breaking box office launch of "Saw III" has inspired the film's distributor to order a fourth installment of the R-rated horror series. According to final data issued Monday, the film earned $33.61 million during its first three days, a record for both Lionsgate and for the franchise, but off $700,000 from the three-day estimate the studio published Sunday. "Saw III" received an overall grade of B from exit pollster CinemaScore. With a hefty per-screen average of $10,612, the film was best received by the under-25 crowd, which was divided pretty evenly male-female. "Saw III" stars Tobin Bell and Shawnee Smith as serial killers. Another sequel is on tap for next Halloween. well, i have to say... i'm not sure what to think. if the first 3 were ordered as a set, a complete trilogy, that means the story was intende for those 3 movies. the idea of adding a fourth movie, after the fact, doesn't bode well for the storyline...:mad:
__________________
Well shit the bed! Last edited by pt447; 10-31-2006 at 05:02 PM. 
|
|
#3
10-31-2006, 11:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
they cost nest to nothing as movies go and pull in tons of money... they will continue to milk it until it stops being profitable, and then it may go straight to dvd...
__________________
Some misguided people decided I was funny enough to pay. See if they're right: http://www.cracked.com/members/Vodstok/ (I tweet pretty hardcore, too)
|
|
#4
10-31-2006, 01:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
like i already said... the fact is, they were intended, and conceived as a trilogy, so now, whatever they do, it'll felt tagged on. sure, they left III open, but with Jigsaw dead... what's the point? none, just cash... bastards...
__________________
Well shit the bed!
|
|
#5
10-31-2006, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
SAW was never, ever intended to be a trilogy. I get this information from an interview with the creative persons behind the original SAW. It was intended soley as a movie to get their names out there. A movie so they could make a better movie later on. To their suprise, SAW became the hit they were trying to make with the money they planned on making after SAW. If you understand that.
BY THE FUCKING WAY. THANKS FOR THE SPOILER JACKASS. WARNING WARNING WARNING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN SAW 3, DON'T READ THE FUCKING POST ABOVE THIS ONE.
|
|
#6
10-31-2006, 03:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Fuck, the movie's been out for what, 5 days? We dont all live at the theatre, most of us dont go see a movie the day it fucking comes out. Thanks for ruining my day asshole:mad:
__________________
"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
#7
10-31-2006, 06:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well you should of seen it coming because tobin bell signed on for I think it was 4 or 5 saws when he did the first.
|
|
#8
10-31-2006, 07:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As long as they continue to be good and introduce some (fairly) fresh ideas I say go for it. I don't understand the hate some people feel toward franchises that spawn sequels as long as their good. When they stop being good, I stop watching.
__________________
|
|
#9
10-31-2006, 08:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If they keep managing to bust out great movies like the first three, then I don't have a problem with it. I will continue to be a fan. But if they start to get even slightly stale I'll object to them making more.
|
 |
|
|
