ShockTillYouDrop.com

Posted by: ronniemick on May 12, 2009 at 14:16:48

Are we really surprised
Liongate has continually and consistently made "questionable" business decisions for the past year or so now.
Midnight Meat Train. The Burrowers. Repo. Punisher: War Zone. If they're not dumped in the $1 theatres, they're shuffled off straight to video - A great big "F You" to all the people who busted a** on these films.
Not gonna pretend to understand their business model, or come up with theories because it makes no sense whatsoever

Posted by: sp on May 12, 2009 at 14:36:31

If it isn't saw Lionsgate doesn't give a **** about it.

Posted by: Super_fly on May 12, 2009 at 14:41:51

@ sp: exactly

Posted by: djblack1313 on May 12, 2009 at 15:39:18

i agree if it isn't SAW part 429 then forget it. didn't MBV3D make decent/good $?!! i would've LOVED a sequel!

Posted by: djblack1313 on May 12, 2009 at 15:40:25

oops. i just read the quote where Kerr confirms it made good bank! nevermind! LOL.

Posted by: Zo on May 12, 2009 at 16:07:39

WTF it was a good movie.

Posted by: Lando on May 12, 2009 at 16:54:41

It was a good movie...but seriously when was the last good sequel to a horror movie. I'm tired of all these Direct to Video horror pieces of crap! Let's hope Halloween 2 makes me eat my words!

Posted by: Ron on May 12, 2009 at 17:06:10

Lionsgate is stupid not to focus on a sequel that people actually want to see. If they think the're gonna last just on the Saw films then guess they will find out the hard way...

Posted by: omarramos on May 12, 2009 at 17:46:39

This makes absolutely no sense.Lionsgate has a huge hit and doesn't want to make a sequel.That's just plain stupid.I thought studio's were in the business of making money.I'm sure it will be a huge hit on DVD also.So please give the fans what they want a sequel to one of the most entertaining horror films to come out in a while.It doesn't have to be in 3D either.Be smart lionsgate and don't think that SAW crap is going to last.Because SAW 5 sucked big time.

Posted by: rubsk1 on May 12, 2009 at 18:17:24

i stop after saw 3

Posted by: hotzodpockets on May 12, 2009 at 19:01:28

Jensen Ackles ROCKED in this! SPOILERS! I was also surprised that he turned out to be the killer at the end, as I hadn't really researched the film in depth. I just went & saw it.

Lionsgate is crazy if they don't think they can make a sequel. Ackles has a certain amount of marketability due to Supernatural & as long as the story is good, what's the problem?! I mean, Jared Padelecki was in the reboot of Friday the 13th, & certainly that WILL get a sequel.

So what's the problem Lionsgate? Sure beats Saw Redux!

Posted by: djblack1313 on May 12, 2009 at 19:41:15

rubsk1, i totally agree (actually i agree w/ all the above posts! LOL) that SAW V was ATROCIOUS. one of THE WORST movies i've seen in years (it's tied w/ PROM NIGHT 2008 for me! LOL).

Posted by: giantman68 on May 12, 2009 at 21:43:42

lionsgate u guys r f**kin up big time if u dont do a sequel!

Posted by: djshark1 on May 12, 2009 at 22:27:46

the movies budget was only $15 million..and it made $51 million domestically and $70 million worldwide..so yea..where the hell is our sequel!!(lol)

Posted by: Jason21 on May 12, 2009 at 23:43:45

i loved this movie, it's been a while since we've seen a good R-rated movie, come on i was looking forward for the 2nd, it even ends in a way that tells you that there will be another one. hopefully Lionsgate changes their minds, and if they don't then they're stupid, but they're going to do more of those crappy saw movies.

Posted by: ico on May 13, 2009 at 00:11:20

Stop complaining about the Saw movies. They are cheap films to produce so it's not their fault. They just werent interested in doing a sequel, they probably have too much on their plate at the moment.

Posted by: tessbaby on May 13, 2009 at 06:19:03

ico, cheap doesn't always mean bad, no point blaming the price for saw's failure, bad writting and bad acting is what makes a movie suck ass and the saw movies suck ass because of the acting and the writting not because it was cheaply made. MBV3D rocked and lionsgate are ****in stupid to let it slip through their grubby little fingers.

Posted by: That 80s guy on May 13, 2009 at 11:19:22

Lionsgate did the right thing. Besides the special effects in 3-D, this film does not warrant a sequel. The storyline was preaty much the same as the original. Besides we could consider this the sequel. Better to let this one laid to rest and move on. Who knows may'be someone will pick it up and do a sequel and do it some justice, but I am doubtful. Let bygones be bygones and move on.

Posted by: ico on May 13, 2009 at 11:26:01

tessbaby

I like the Saw movies, and what i was saying is that since they are cheap to make it's not Saws fault that they arent making MBV 2. I said that because people keep blaming them which is stupid. Believe me, if you went to the page for Saw 6, on this site, you'll see that i like Saw.

Posted by: he-man on May 13, 2009 at 13:15:11

didnt see this. ill rent it. who cares! why does every movie need a sequel just cause it made money! good for you lionsgate!

Posted by: ico on May 13, 2009 at 15:32:45

he-man

People want a sequel because the movie was good and want to see more. It's not about the money for the fans.

Posted by: Evan on May 13, 2009 at 21:40:19

We all know that if they do make a sequel it will suck and we will all ***** about it being terrible and how they shouldnt have done another one...at least this helps us skip that step all together.

Posted by: Viktor on May 14, 2009 at 00:32:55

Thank Hera there will be no sequel

Posted by: CCR on May 14, 2009 at 06:29:46

i have seen many a horror movie, and the great ones r great 4 a reason...i.e.:gimmicks not allowed.....this movie has gotten WAY too much clout for simply being "3-D"....i personally dislike the whole 3-D philosophy, it kinda defeats the purpose of making kick-ass movies that are not in need of obvious ploys to get stupid kids to think horror movies r cool....if anyone knows wut the f uck i'm talkin about, let it be known here

p.s. real horror doesn't NEED 3-D....in fact, that totally detracts from the purpose of horror movies....down w gimmicks!!

weak wannabe comments here:

Posted by: tessbaby on May 14, 2009 at 07:39:55

this movies was just as good without the 3D effects I watched it both ways and have to say this movie would have done just as well without it. But come on who doesn't like gimmicks once in a while.

ico

I don't blame the saw movies for there not being a sequel I blame them for giving sequels a bad name. I mean how many times can you tell the same story before it becomes unbareable. The cost is not what makes them bad poor story telling is.