Comic-Con 2014

'Saw' Franchise to Continue with an 8th Movie

Lionsgate Vice Chairman Michael Burns talks about how we'll see 'Saw' "in the picture" in the future.
Saw may be coming back to Lionsgate
Saw may be coming back to Lionsgate
Although Saw 3D hinted that the franchise was far from over, Lionsgate Vice Chairman Michael Burns recently interviewed with CNBC and revealed that the Saw franchise may indeed be resurrected.

"We have a bunch of franchises, I'm sure some day you'll see Saw back in the picture." the vice chairman said, speaking on the inevitable return of Jigsaw.




Can Lionsgate survive on The Hunger Games , The Expendables and Tyler Perry movies alone? Let's face it. The studio needs Jigsaw.

Saw 3D was released October 29th, 2010 and stars Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Gina Holden, Betsy Russell, Tanedra Howard, Johnny Yong Bosch, Shauna MacDonald, Franky G. The film is directed by Kevin Greutert.

Saw was released October 29th, 2004 and stars Leigh Whannell, Cary Elwes, Danny Glover, Ken Leung, Dina Meyer, Mike Butters, Paul Gutrecht, Michael Emerson. The film is directed by James Wan.



Share this story yet?

0 0 0 0 0

RELATED STORIES

BEST OF THE WEB

Comments (32)

  1. JasonKat

    hey dont put me in this, jk. lol more like chucky vs that puppet. lol

    3 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  2. CelluloidDreams

    LOL! Why again!? What...? "Saw 8: Jason meets Jigsaw"?!.

    3 years agoby @2movieguysFlag

  3. ejk1

    @jasonkat I agree with everything you wrote in terms of being a director and making whatever it is you are directing as good as possible, but some scripts do not lend themselves to greatness. They may belong to a popular genre, which do not always require greatness to be profitable. Also, remember that it isn't the director we're taking about, it's the studio. If a film franchise makes the studio money, they will keep it alive, no matter how tepid the scripts are. If you as a director does not wish to make said film, they'll find an alternative, possibly a cheaper one.

    3 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  4. JasonKat

    Im no MR PERFECT! but if i were to direct a film, i would give it my best to make it a masterpiece not thro watever idea that is givin to me just to close the book and put it out in theaters, yes the idea is making more than what it cost to make, but fot me, making a good quality film means more. Because you want your fans, the people, the movie critics to give your work an A+, at the same time, its good enough for another film. On the other hand if you sit there making movies just to cash in a paycheck not caring if the movie was good enough or not. then people are not gonna bother with it because they hated ur 1st "work"
    But not every director out there sees it like that.

    3 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  5. ejk1

    @jasonkat "But money means more to them than a good movie."

    Yep. While we the audience would love if all films were on the high end of the art spectrum, we have to remember that studios are not in the business of making quality art, but rather the business of making money. If a certain franchise continues to make money, bet on that franchise to continue. Why else would Saw continue? Why is Bay being sought for Transformers 4? And just you wait to see how much money Nolan and Bale are offered a year from now for Batman 4; we'll see then how set in stone the whole "TDKR is our last Batman film" mantra truly is.

    3 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  6. MovieManiac

    Oh my God, just f*cking stop with these movies.

    3 years agoby @moviemaniac66Flag

  7. JasonKat

    I may not like saw, i may be tired of them but that doesnt stop me from not watching the next film. The only thing that changes there, is the fact that 60-70% f people dont go out to watch these films anymore, they wait for them on dvd or red box. or the big one.. wait til they air on tv in a few yrs, lol

    3 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  8. JasonKat

    @ejk1 i can very well agree with you there. Some movies are cheaper to make than others Sometimes the cheaper films are the 1s that bring in more money than those which cost more to make.
    paranormal activity comes to mind.
    But you gotta admit some films dont need sequel nomatter how much they will end up milking out of you. But money means more to them than a good movie.

    3 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  9. LuxoIII

    Typical. Saw VII was a devastating disappointment and, in no way, does not "change the game" as they claimed it would. I'll stick with I-III and ignore the existence of the others

    3 years agoby @brady1138Flag

  10. ejk1

    @jasonkat I think it has to do with Budgetary concerns. Saw looks like it costs next to nothing to make, and then garners a big enough box office to be a very profitable film for the studio, whereas superhero films have huge budgets, creating a great risk for profit loss.

    3 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  11. TheDude1

    @kguy For the past two decades and even longer putting "The Final Chapter" in the title all but guarantee's a sequel in the horror genre.

    3 years agoby @thedude1Flag

  12. Salemwolf711

    just let it die already

    3 years agoby @Salemwolf711Flag

  13. K.Guy

    what part of "THE FINAL CHAPTER" does anybody not understand.

    3 years agoby @kguyFlag

  14. JasonKat

    How is it that super hero movies keep getting remakes/reboot, they only last up to 3 or 4 then they stop it there, but films like saw and fast & furious keep going & going.

    3 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  15. slysnide

    Christ. No more "Saw" movies. Please. Two of them were enough. Thank you.

    3 years agoby @slysnideFlag

  16. Josh

    I haven't been watching since Saw II.

    3 years agoby @shuabertFlag

  17. ejk1

    It won't get my money, but it's a sound business move. These films are very profitable.

    3 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  18. SherlockHolmes2009

    Saw it comin a mile away

    3 years agoby @SherlockHolmes2009Flag

  19. TheDude1

    O Hell Yeah!!!! I f*cking love the Saw franchise.

    3 years agoby @thedude1Flag

  20. moviegeek

    o.o

    3 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  21. Tha Phoenix

    Oh, Lord.

    *packs sh*t up and exits*

    3 years agoby @thaphoenixFlag

  22. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    Lionsgate should branch out.

    3 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  23. Xenon

    yawn

    3 years agoby @xenon56Flag

  24. Space101

    Honnestly? Who gives a sh*t of this pointless sequel and franchise? There's no more story to tell 5 Saw movies ago!

    3 years agoby @space101Flag

  25. Etorken

    I didn't even know there were seven already. Should've ended with the third one, or the second.

    3 years agoby @etorkenFlag

  26. Dan

    Absolute and utter... money grab. As I type this comment, I see above a link with a picture that says "SAW: The Final Chapter". Riiiiiight.

    3 years agoby @dan1Flag

  27. ROFLitschristian

    F... fff... ffff... F*CK!

    3 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag

  28. ROFLitschristian

    @corey Did it end with a cliffhanger? I stopped at 6.

    3 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag

  29. Corey W.

    People behind Saw 3D shouldn't have the franchise with a cliff-hanger. They should have wrapped it up a lot better than having to use a twist that only pops more questions. They did that for a reason, clearly, just in case they ever needed to go back to Saw for more $$$

    3 years agoby @coreyFlag

  30. Mr_Jellyfish

    The first Saw was an incredibly average movie, and they have gone downhill from there.

    3 years agoby @mr-jellyfishFlag

Comic Con 2014

Latest Comic Con News