World of KJ :: View topic - Monday Numbers (March 6)

getluv wrote:

They are so not equal quality. SAW is cheap and it's shock value is the only thing it has to offer. The way the cast was killed off in SAW II was uninspiring. While FD3 is better directed, looks great, more original, and never tries to copy itself and it ups the ante.

getluv wrote:

The Dark Shape wrote:

That would be because, whether you agree or not, most people like the Saw films more than the Final Destination films.

Thegun wrote:

getluv wrote:

Well there is no aquiring for taste. While the Final Destination films are fun popcorn flicks, Saw, which I also don't find as great horror films, are so much better.

I agree, the acting and directing is about the same.

But the Saw films are really amazingly shot, while FD is quite generic.
FD has almos the same plotline for all of the films, Saw is quite unpredictable in what will happen next.
FD as far as copying itself, see above, all that is different is the cast, and the deaths.

But like earlier stated, I could be wrong.

Joe wrote:

Thegun wrote:

getluv wrote:

Some would say that all that really changes in the Saw films are the traps, very similar to the deaths in the FD series. For all its twists, Saw is still all about the different ways people die.

Author:	zingy [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Monday Numbers (March 6)
[table][row]1[col]2[col]16 Blocks[col]WB[col]$922,431 [col]-69%[col]-[col]2,706[col]$341 [col]$12,777,691 [col]4[row]2[col]1[col]Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion[col]Lions[col]$681,602 [col]-78%[col]-58%[col]2,194[col]$311 [col]$48,429,845 [col]11[row]3[col]4[col]Ultraviolet[col]SGem[col]$616,643 [col]-72%[col]-[col]2,558[col]$241 [col]$9,681,523 [col]4[row]4[col]3[col]Eight Below[col]BV[col]$601,220 [col]-79%[col]-30%[col]3,122[col]$193 [col]$59,237,593 [col]18[row]5[col]8[col]Dave Chappelle's Block Party[col]Rog.[col]$425,000 [col]-68%[col]-[col]1,200[col]$354 [col]$6,640,000 [col]4[row]6[col]6[col]The Pink Panther[col]Sony[col]$333,498 [col]-82%[col]-35%[col]3,024[col]$110 [col]$70,002,099 [col]25[row]7[col]5[col]Aquamarine[col]Fox[col]$296,334 [col]-86%[col]-[col]2,512[col]$118 [col]$7,779,003 [col]4[row]8[col]9[col]Date Movie[col]Fox[col]$277,760 [col]-75%[col]-42%[col]2,603[col]$107 [col]$40,987,261 [col]18[row]9[col]7[col]Curious George[col]Uni.[col]$258,475 [col]-83%[col]-32%[col]2,590[col]$100 [col]$49,560,090 [col]25[row]10[col]10[col]Final Destination 3[col]NL[col]$245,000 [col]-71%[col]-40%[col]2,208[col]$111 [col]$49,841,000 [col]25[row]11[col]11[col]Firewall[col]WB[col]$239,303 [col]-69%[col]-41%[col]2,212[col]$108 [col]$42,734,200 [col]25[row]12[col]13[col]Brokeback Mountain[col]Focus[col]$235,000 [col]-59%[col]5%[col]1,272[col]$185 [col]$79,097,000 [col]88[/table]

Author:	Dkmuto [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:
Look at those movies! Burnin' up the box office!

Author:	getluv [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:
FD3 should cross $50m today. Why hasn't New Line green lighted a fourth yet. I really think this franchise is more original than SAW. And...CURIOUS GEORGE and MADEA should cross $50m on Wednesday.

Author:	zingy [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:
We won't see another Final Destination flick until atleast 2008.

Author:	The Dark Shape [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Did you miss out the last two times? It's been a three year wait between each Final Destination. And you can think it's more original all you want, but Saw's the most successful horror franchise out there today.

World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Monday Numbers (March 6) http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17561	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Harry Warden [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Final Destination is a more enjoyable franchise than Saw yet somehow the latter is more embraced by the public.

Author:	makeshift [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:58 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd say they're of equal quality. They're completely different types of films, though. They're both the fast food version of horror films.

Author:	getluv [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:
They are so not equal quality. SAW is cheap and it's shock value is the only thing it has to offer. The way the cast was killed off in SAW II was uninspiring. While FD3 is better directed, looks great, more original, and never tries to copy itself and it ups the ante.

Author:	makeshift [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:42 pm ]
Post subject:
getluv wrote: They are so not equal quality. SAW is cheap and it's shock value is the only thing it has to offer. The way the cast was killed off in SAW II was uninspiring. While FD3 is better directed, looks great, more original, and never tries to copy itself and it ups the ante. Meh. I've given each film in both series' similar grades, so to me... they're of similar quality. Yes, the FD series has higher production values, but that doesn't automatically mean it's of higher quality.

Author:	zennier [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Nice post awards boost for BM. Did people buy their tickets Sunday, expecting to walk in and see a BP winner Monday?

Author:	Thegun [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:
getluv wrote: They are so not equal quality. SAW is cheap and it's shock value is the only thing it has to offer. The way the cast was killed off in SAW II was uninspiring. While FD3 is better directed, looks great, more original, and never tries to copy itself and it ups the ante. Well there is no aquiring for taste. While the Final Destination films are fun popcorn flicks, Saw, which I also don't find as great horror films, are so much better. I agree, the acting and directing is about the same. But the Saw films are really amazingly shot, while FD is quite generic. FD has almos the same plotline for all of the films, Saw is quite unpredictable in what will happen next. FD as far as copying itself, see above, all that is different is the cast, and the deaths. But like earlier stated, I could be wrong.

Author:	Terminator1997 [ Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:04 am ]
Post subject:
Die Madea....DIE!!

Author:	Harry Warden [ Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:20 am ]
Post subject:
The Dark Shape wrote: That would be because, whether you agree or not, most people like the Saw films more than the Final Destination films. Because people are sick and they enjoy seeing others tortured No really, the Final Destination films are easily more "enjoyable" and fun than the Saw films but Saw has more twists. They're about equal really but if I had to choose, I'd rather see a Final Destination over a Saw for a fun time at the movies.

Author:	Harry Warden [ Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 am ]
Post subject:
Thegun wrote: getluv wrote: They are so not equal quality. SAW is cheap and it's shock value is the only thing it has to offer. The way the cast was killed off in SAW II was uninspiring. While FD3 is better directed, looks great, more original, and never tries to copy itself and it ups the ante. Well there is no aquiring for taste. While the Final Destination films are fun popcorn flicks, Saw, which I also don't find as great horror films, are so much better. I agree, the acting and directing is about the same. But the Saw films are really amazingly shot, while FD is quite generic. FD has almos the same plotline for all of the films, Saw is quite unpredictable in what will happen next. FD as far as copying itself, see above, all that is different is the cast, and the deaths. But like earlier stated, I could be wrong. Some would say that all that really changes in the Saw films are the traps, very similar to the deaths in the FD series. For all its twists, Saw is still all about the different ways people die.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	MikeQ. [ Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:09 am ]
Post subject:
All I know is that the acting in the first Saw movie is absolutely atrocious. No exaggeration. It was laughably bad, especially from Cary Elwes. The Final Destination films (1 and 2) are definately way better. I can't speak for Saw 2 or Final Destination 3, since I haven't seen either. PEACE, Mike.

Author:	getluv [ Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Joe wrote: Thegun wrote: getluv wrote: They are so not equal quality. SAW is cheap and it's shock value is the only thing it has to offer. The way the cast was killed off in SAW II was uninspiring. While FD3 is better directed, looks great, more original, and never tries to copy itself and it ups the ante. Well there is no aquiring for taste. While the Final Destination films are fun popcorn flicks, Saw, which I also don't find as great horror films, are so much better. I agree, the acting and directing is about the same. But the Saw films are really amazingly shot, while FD is quite generic. FD has almos the same plotline for all of the films, Saw is quite unpredictable in what will happen next. FD as far as copying itself, see above, all that is different is the cast, and the deaths. But like earlier stated, I could be wrong. Some would say that all that really changes in the Saw films are the traps, very similar to the deaths in the FD series. For all its twists, Saw is still all about the different ways people die. Exactly 6 out of the 8 deaths in SAW II were incorrect in the SAW universe. SAW is only unpredictible if you don't get 1 or 2 words in the movie, and when the twist is played out it is never plausible. SAW treats its audiences like idiots, the audience just doesn't know that.

Author:	Kris K [ Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Well i can safely say...i enjoy every final destination movie, alot more than any of the SAW movies. And i see alot of horror movies. The SAW's are "just okay" in my opinion.