If this 3D is ANYTHING like Avatar's I will be happy :)

[big_poppa]

I just saw Avatar in 3D. It was pretty awesome. Almost nothing popped out at you. It didnt look gimmicky at all. It added depth and dimension to the movie. If this is how SAW VII is going to utilize 3D i will be very satisfied with it.

[Damdeen]

I am just going to make a guess.........................that it won't.

[Cameron]

Avatar was so cool. I haven't enjoyed a movie that much in a long time.

[tobinbellpwns]

I am just going to make a guess.........................that it won't.
i never got why people have negative attitudes toward the next installment. makes no sense. why are you here if you're just gonna be like IT'LL PROBABLY SUCK FSLFLOLXZZ

[Stix489]

i never got why people have negative attitudes toward the next installment. makes no sense. why are you here if you're just gonna be like IT'LL PROBABLY SUCK FSLFLOLXZZ

Because it'll probably suck.

[Kanten]

Because it'll probably suck.

+rep.

:eek: Wait, when did rep come back?

[ashedmaniac]

I believe Hackl said awhile back how it wasn't just going to be a gimmick and was going to be there to provide depth to the images...and he talked about how the sets would be built to allow for more expression of this depth and all.

Up until I heard those things, I had no hope for it. I expected utter gimmickry and NOT something I could watch without the 3D and still feel was a worthwhile experience. However, after hearing that, it's making me hope that it's essentially going to be "tastefullly done" and that the most of "something flying toward the camera" we'll get is a few "pigmask" jump scares and some mechanism breaking or whatever.

Two or three instances of, "toward-camera" gimmickry but otherwise simply more depth=good.

10 "pieces" set around having something fly at the camera=bad.

Hopefully, like Avatar, it's the first.

-Ash

[mastae]

I believe Hackl said awhile back how it wasn't just going to be a gimmick and was going to be there to provide depth to the images...and he talked about how the sets would be built to allow for more expression of this depth and all.

Up until I heard those things, I had no hope for it. I expected utter gimmickry and NOT something I could watch without the 3D and still feel was a worthwhile experience. However, after hearing that, it's making me hope that it's essentially going to be "tastefullly done" and that the most of "something flying toward the camera" we'll get is a few "pigmask" jump scares and some mechanism breaking or whatever.

Two or three instances of, "toward-camera" gimmickry but otherwise simply more depth=good.

10 "pieces" set around having something fly at the camera=bad.

Hopefully, like Avatar, it's the first.

-Ash
Did you also hear Mark Burg's comments about how he wants shit to fly at the audience like in MY BLOODY VALENTINE?

My god... piece of advice, don't compare a movie you're making to a shitty movie, Mark Burg.

[miss_brutality]

oh it will we wonderful if it's like Avatar - I loved the movie and I'm gonna see it again in a couple of hours xD But having things fly at the camera will make the movie really lame! maybe 1 or 2 in the whole movie is ok but not all the time. If we want A dumn movie with a lot af shit popping out We'll se Final destination - this is saw .

[Nosferatu]

I believe Hackl said awhile back how it wasn't just going to be a gimmick and was going to be there to provide depth to the images...and he talked about how the sets would be built to allow for more expression of this depth and all.

Up until I heard those things, I had no hope for it. I expected utter gimmickry and NOT something I could watch without the 3D and still feel was a worthwhile experience. However, after hearing that, it's making me hope that it's essentially going to be "tastefullly done" and that the most of "something flying toward the camera" we'll get is a few "pigmask" jump scares and some mechanism breaking or whatever.


Hopefully, like Avatar, it's the first.

-Ash

haha. Tastefullly.

[Chukkles]

I don't want gimmicky things like stuff flying out at us too much, but if it is, I can live with it.

But I will die if at any point Jigsaw turns to the camera and says something like "It's time to wear your glasses, make your choice" with a sly wink at the audience.
Lol...

[he_helped_me]

I don't want gimmicky things like stuff flying out at us too much, but if it is, I can live with it.

But I will die if at any point Jigsaw turns to the camera and says something like "It's time to wear your glasses, make your choice" with a sly wink at the audience.
Lol...


lol, that's funny,, but i bet we willl just have to have are glassesz on the whole time

[jigsaw x legacy]

To me, as long as they give an option of 3D, or no 3D, I'll be happy.
I honestly have no desire to see it in 3D, but if they give us an option
Like they did with Avatar, I will definitely go and see it.

[ashedmaniac]

Did you also hear Mark Burg's comments about how he wants shit to fly at the audience like in MY BLOODY VALENTINE?

My god... piece of advice, don't compare a movie you're making to a shitty movie, Mark Burg.

Well, it doesn't surprise me that Burg would say things like that. But I also heard that there may be some dramatic device which allows for emphasizing people's placement in traps...which means trap mechanisms may be aimed at the audience, giving an audience a POV of someone in a trap. Thus, it makes sense all around then if someone's eyes are meant to be hit by something or whatever, assuming they have a reason to do that shift to POV suddenly (not sure what that could be).

-Ash

[KillerZavatar]

I am just going to make a guess.........................that it won't.
lionsgate wont give Saw a budget like that anyways

[Columind]

It's doubtful that its going to be Avatar-like 3D. Having them produce the film in 3D alone is by no doubt going to stretch development time and the technique for Avatar was worked on for 3 complete years.

I would be less negative about the idea of 3D if it wasnt for the fact that having it put into a movie with an extremely tight scedule makes it seem like it could get rushed or that it might just be there for no other reason than to be hip and cool.

[Splurj]

Ah...Avatar, the second best movie of the year.

[Kanten]

But I will die if at any point Jigsaw turns to the camera and says something like "It's time to wear your glasses, make your choice" with a sly wink at the audience.

"Could you reach like that please?"

[Renegade Vic]

I don't want gimmicky things like stuff flying out at us too much, but if it is, I can live with it.

But I will die if at any point Jigsaw turns to the camera and says something like "It's time to wear your glasses, make your choice" with a sly wink at the audience.
Lol...

As part of the advertising campaign, I'd laugh my ass off. As an actual part of the movie, I'd walk out of the theater.

[ashedmaniac]

As part of the advertising campaign, I'd laugh my ass off. As an actual part of the movie, I'd walk out of the theater.

But would you be walking out of the theater...IN 3D?!

-Ash

[Danika Azrael]

But would you be walking out of the theater...IN 3D?!

-Ash

HA! Epic LOLage on that one! +rep!
Avatar was good in terms of how the 3D was executed, but if it gets over the top (*hint* Spy Kids 3) then it just becomes a gimmick. It's all about how it gets done

[Stix489]

+rep.

:eek: Wait, when did rep come back?

Thank you sir.

and since the forum came back.

[KillerZavatar]

Ah...Avatar, the second best movie of the year.
after Saw VI? x)

[miss_brutality]

Ah...Avatar, the second best movie of the year.

Agreed! After SAW VI of course :P

[steph87]

Said from the first time that 3D Saw VII was mentioned that I'd only like it if it was just used to add actual depth to the movie, and I will hate it if it's just things being thrown at the audience.

Not seen Avatar so can't comment on if I'd like that sort of 3D usage in Saw, but from what I can tell it's basically what I said lol.

[Damdeen]

i never got why people have negative attitudes toward the next installment. makes no sense. why are you here if you're just gonna be like IT'LL PROBABLY SUCK FSLFLOLXZZ

I don't have an opinon on wether or not the 3-D will be good (I'll judge it when the trailers come out :p). What the OP was saying was he hoped the 3d would be similar to that of Avatar. It won't....because that is the newest technology and would cost way to much money to make

[big_poppa]

the 3D is NEW technology. It depends on how they use it. Something like My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destination is very gimmicky, where they have jaws and spikes and other random stuff just pop out at you. Avatar on the other hand makes you feel like you're looking INTO the movie, not at it. That technology isnt new at all.

[Damdeen]

What do you mean not new?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/aug/21/avatar-3d-film-james-cameron
here is one of many links saying the technology is new

[ashedmaniac]

What do you mean not new?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/aug/21/avatar-3d-film-james-cameron
here is one of many links saying the technology is new

I think they mean immersive 3D in general. Not the EXACT approach Cameron took...nor the budget necessary to do it like that.

-Ash

[Damdeen]

Oh ok that makes more sence.....and i really hope it's that style of 3-D!
We'll be able to figure out by the traliers though if it's that or Final Destination cheese fest

[ashedmaniac]

Oh ok that makes more sence.....and i really hope it's that style of 3-D!
We'll be able to figure out by the traliers though if it's that or Final Destination cheese fest

I would hope so. I used to enjoy the FD series...but not so much after the latest installment of cheap and uninteresting-ness (to me, at least...others here may have loved it, I understand).

Although I'm also thinking that, maybe it'll just have a few "toward the camera" moments. Enough where it doesn't feel unorganic to the film, but does add to the whole "gimmickry"-side sufficiently as well...and that those will be played up in the trailer to attract a bigger audience with the 3D approach.

So even the trailer may not tell us. Unless it has 70 shots of things flying at the camera which it can safely be assumed are IN the movie. But it'll probably just be a trailer for Saw VII, but not feature much, if any, footage. Ala IV...and VI...

Although I really prefer, "Here's a sort of premise...but we're not going to give anything away."-trailers. For any film, really.

Far too often, we get the entire storyline in a trailer or get a trailer which portrays a strange, dark comedy as a mainstream comedy or something like that. Which just ends up causing a lot of disappointment on many people's parts.

The "art" has to be "dumbed down" to appeal to the masses, it seems. I doubt Saw VII 3D will be any different. Let's just hope it's not the same kind of "dumbing-down" they did for V which made the twist and the story and everything painfully obvious.

-Ash

[MuffinMcFluffin]

Pretty much the biggest issue I have with 3D right now is how they will handle stock footage that they use for flashback purposes. This has been something they've been keen on using since Saw IV as a way to progress the story and clue the audience in on its references, but now they will either have to drastically limit the amount, or there will be an awkward transition where this flashback footage will be flat, two-dimensional shots.

I don't even know if they've taken that into consideration yet.

[XSawedToPiecesX]

I don't even know if they've taken that into consideration yet.

It's not as if they are first time filmmakers. That is probably only one of the many, many things they have considered.

[XSawedToPiecesX]

I don't even know if they've taken that into consideration yet.

It's not as if they are first time filmmakers. That is probably only one of the many, many things they have considered.

[tobinbellpwns]

I don't even know if they've taken that into consideration yet.
It's not as if they are first time filmmakers. That is probably only one of the many, many things they have considered.

[ashedmaniac]

I don't even know if they've taken that into consideration yet.

Um...I don't normally flat out state something in this manner (this bluntly), but I think you're wrong. If they use stock footage, it will likely be in 3D. Thus, there won't be a "strange transition" of sorts. I don't think they'll be having ten minutes of stock footage, no. But they've already said that they did a test of updating the original Saw to be in 3D and it turned out great.

Thus...methinks they know what flashback footage they might need and they've been considering this stuff for a long time...

-Ash

[MuffinMcFluffin]

Um...I don't normally flat out state something in this manner (this bluntly), but I think you're wrong. If they use stock footage, it will likely be in 3D. Thus, there won't be a "strange transition" of sorts. I don't think they'll be having ten minutes of stock footage, no. But they've already said that they did a test of updating the original Saw to be in 3D and it turned out great.

Thus...methinks they know what flashback footage they might need and they've been considering this stuff for a long time...

-AshAre you sure they said "the original Saw"? I won't say that I've worked with 3D first-hand before, but I have first-hand experienced what goes on behind some of the work of transforming something into 3D. Now I'm not saying that it's impossible to create a 3D image out of a flat image, but it's a very difficult process and does not turn out to be quite as effective (when you really look down at it) as when shooting a film in 3D to begin with. Instead of creating actual depth to the overall image, they'll more than likely just create layers, and stick some images in the foreground and some in the background.

Now if you told me that they took the shot of Hoffman smashing through the glass in Saw VI and transformed that into 3D, I would believe you. The reason I would believe you is because I believe that they actually shot that in 3D to begin with. There's something about the shot that looks different from most of the other ones (I only saw the movie once so I may be misremembering), but I have a sense that that's one of the first shots we'll see in the movie to show off the 3D, bringing it back to us and making us go "Whoa!" when we first see it, since we've only seen the 2D version so far.

I guess I mistyped before (wrong tense). When I said what I said earlier, I meant that obviously they have that in mind now, but say when the topic first came up, like how we discuss it back and forth here, the only two times this issue has been discussed was now and a couple of months ago, and both times I brought it up. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a common point of discussion when we're considering all of the things that go into the 3D aspect along with shooting it in 3D.

Let's hope they get it right.

[tobinbellpwns]

Now if you told me that they took the shot of Hoffman smashing through the glass in Saw VI and transformed that into 3D, I would believe you. The reason I would believe you is because I believe that they actually shot that in 3D to begin with. There's something about the shot that looks different from most of the other ones (I only saw the movie once so I may be misremembering), but I have a sense that that's one of the first shots we'll see in the movie to show off the 3D, bringing it back to us and making us go "Whoa!" when we first see it, since we've only seen the 2D version so far.



that's actually an interesting thought

[ashedmaniac]

Are you sure they said "the original Saw"?

Actually, I'm not, no. Sorry. I can give you the quote from Burg (which means the reliability may be a bit iffy to some, yes)...

We saw a test that somebody did, that was a minute of Saw, that they just transferred from 2-D to 3-D, and it looked great. So, we were like, “All right, screw it. Let’s do it!”

I just assumed that he was talking about the original Saw but he may have meant a minute of Saw in general...not just the film "Saw"...

I don't know about Hoffman smashing through the glass, but Kevin is around here from time to time. Perhaps you can inquire directly.

-Ash

[MuffinMcFluffin]

^ Okay, I got what he said. So yeah, there is the possibility that they brought in a 3D style shooting for that shot at least (perhaps more, I'm not sure), and whoever it was showed Mark how a shot like that could look in 3D.

If you don't know what I mean by they have to shoot it differently, I'll give the briefest of explanations (which is pretty common sense as is). Close one eye, and you lose that field of perception with regards to the proximity of objects in front of you. So the 3D effect is something that is caused by both of our eyes creating that perception, but they can't do it on a two-dimensional screen obviously. Well, the existing technology allows us to view through the lenses the very focal points that are shot through the cameras (yes, plural) that create that depth perception for us. So when they shoot in 3D, they actually use two cameras to do it (one for the left eye, one for the right), then a lot of post-production stuff for it to work on screen with the glasses.

So in short, using one camera is like closing one eye. The only way for them to really get that 3D effect would be pretty tough in post-production with only one focal point. I'm guessing whatever they showed to Burg, it was filmed in 3D during Saw VI production. But I'm never for certain, so as you said it's best for Kevin to clear the air on this matter.

Still is an interesting concept though. I really would like to see how they're going to handle stock footage.

[ashedmaniac]

Still is an interesting concept though. I really would like to see how they're going to handle stock footage.

Well, as far as I understand (and I don't...I'm not really a graphics person)...it would be converted. That's all done with layering and creating 3D computer-generated versions of things which were in 2D images and whatnot in post (obviously). And it typically doesn't look QUITE as good as normal things filmed in 3D (certainly not Avatar 3D with nearly that range of depth). But, for brief clips which could be shown in a Saw film as points of reference...the conversion of a few minutes (tops, probably) of footage shouldn't be hugely expensive...nor cost prohibitive. As with many production-related concerns in relation to Saw, what it might come down to if they don't get things together quickly following the film's shooting, would be time.

-Ash

[Big Boss]

3D fucking sucks because the quality of them when I watch them online the next day after release is piss poor :(

[Vully5789]

Imagine if at the end Costas just flys out of the screen in 3D? :O

[Columind]

Imagine if at the end Costas just flys out of the screen in 3D? :O

I wont lie.

I would enjoy this.

[ashedmaniac]

Imagine if at the end Costas just flys out of the screen in 3D? :O

You mean his head? His arms? What are we talking about here?

Because, while I can picture "knife-swipes" toward camera..."pigface" flashes or jumps toward camera...

I can't quite picture a rationale for this. But head or arms or something, possibly.

-Ash

[Damdeen]

I just want him to fly out and yell "THE END"....if that happens then Saw 7 will easily be the best 3d movie to ever be created

[ashedmaniac]

I just want him to fly out and yell "THE END"....if that happens then Saw 7 will easily be the best 3d movie to ever be created

I'm kind of wondering why you bothered to specify 3D there...

-Ash

[Zander]

I'm kind of wondering why you bothered to specify 3D there...

-AshHe's wanting you to think. THINK, Ash! Think!

[tobinbellpwns]

i want john to thrust his penis to the camera at one point in a flashback.

and jill to thrust her chest.

in 3-D.

[ashedmaniac]

He's wanting you to think. THINK, Ash! Think!

The only reason I can figure out is because, somehow, that wouldn't be the greatest movie - PERIOD? But that doesn't make sense because it obviously would be...so I'm perplexed.

-Ash

[mastae]

I just want him to fly out and yell "THE END"....if that happens then Saw 7 will easily be the best 3d movie to ever be created
Or say what Porky says at the end of the old cartoons... what was it?

I feel like it's "Th-th-that's all folks!" but I also feel like that's wrong...

Still fucking hilarious.

[MRSMARKHOFFMAN]

Ever since I was born I have been totally blind in my right eye. I have no depth perception at all.

So I can't see movies in 3d because you need vision in both eyes to see the 3d effects. I have often wondered what a seeing a movie in 3d would be like.

Hopefully they will have the movie in 2d as well. I can't see paying extra for 3d when I can't see the 3d. :gahh:

[ashedmaniac]

Ever since I was born I have been totally blind in my right eye. I have no depth perception at all.

So I can't see movies in 3d because you need vision in both eyes to see the 3d effects. I have often wondered what a seeing a movie in 3d would be like.

Hopefully they will have the movie in 2d as well. I can't see paying extra for 3d when I can't see the 3d. :gahh:

Assuming it's as wide of a release as it's likely to be and, given the past success of the series and still somewhat struggling amount of 3D theaters in the US (in relation to amount - not funds, as Avatar may have indicated)...

It would seem it's likely to have 2D showings in quite a few locations as well. I can not be sure, however. Surely someone else might know better or at least have more specifics related to this release, but essentially all "mainstream" 3D releases of recent years that I'm aware of have had 2D showings at theaters near me.

-Ash

[he_helped_me]

same here i think maybe one or two poopping ou good thooug

[Kicker]

I knew people who worked on 3D movies(not anymore), and they all told about the same thing: the director loses a lot of control because he has to adhere to what cinematographers and supervisors say, or else the 3D is going to suck. HARD. I don't remember the details, but there were rules they had to lay down as to the way things had to be shot and lit.

I think Avatar was a different story entirely.

Imagine if at the end Costas just flys out of the screen in 3D? :O

What, you mean like in Jaws III when the shark blew up and its teeth went flying at you? Maybe Hoffman gets blown up by a bomb like one from V and bits of him fly at the camera.

[Jigsaw62]

I just saw Avatar in 3D. It was pretty awesome. Almost nothing popped out at you. It didnt look gimmicky at all. It added depth and dimension to the movie. If this is how SAW VII is going to utilize 3D i will be very satisfied with it.

you Believe in God ? xDD

[GabrielS07]

I just don't like the 3-D idea.

-It's gonna take me away from the story emotionally
-I'm scared they're going to focus on the 3-D aspects rather than the pacing of the story.
-I'm gonna have to cough up extra money just for the glasses. I usually go to the midnight releases, which are already like $10.50. Now, with the 3-D I bet my ticket will come close to $14.00...and if the movie sucks I'll be pissed.

I've hated the 3-D idea since they announced it.

[Dr. Finkelstein]

-I'm gonna have to cough up extra money just for the glasses. I usually go to the midnight releases, which are already like $10.50. Now, with the 3-D I bet my ticket will come close to $14.00...and if the movie sucks I'll be pissed.

That's why I'm not going to see it in 3D, if we even have a choice. Our theaters charge an additional $3 for 3D movies. Regular ticket prices go from $9.75 to $10.50 depending on which area you're in.