Headlines


Saw II Video Game On Its Way





Surprisingly enough, the first Saw game that debuted last year on home video game consoles was pretty damned good. It wasn't anything groundbreaking, mind you, but it got the job done and kept most gamers playing until its end.

If there's one thing we know about the Saw franchise, it is this -- IT DOES NOT END! The game will never be over! So what if Jigsaw has been dead for several films! This guy's spirit and legacy are dark, intriguing, and wicked enough to last quite some time.

Joystiq broke the news today that a video game sequel from game developer Zombie Studios and Konami is now on its way. The game is said to take place between the first two films. Check out the teaser trailer below for more. Look for it this fall.

- Uncle Creepy

VISIT THE EVILSHOP @ AMAZON!
Got news? Click here to submit it!
Play games in the Dread Central forums!


-->




NEXT STORY

Floydian Trip's picture

Anybody actually play Saw the video game or did everyone just watch The Lord of the Rings instead? HaHa


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 6:09pm.
Vanvance1's picture

A few points. Lord of the Rings is epic fantasy. It's also one of the most successful series in film and has been covered by thousands of other sites. In fact LOTR coverage is hard to avoid.

Personally I think Jackson did an amazing job adapting the books into movie form. They are as stunningly dull on film as they are on the printed page. I tried reading the series again and could not finish The Two Towers, maybe I had more patience when I was younger.

Even if I don't love LOTR I do love Blu Ray. However, this is just New Line being greedy double (quadruple) dipping assholes, releasing the theatrical versions when they KNOW the fans want the extended director's cuts. It's a low, cash grabbing move.

God of War III is a stunning popular game that is covered on any and all game sites that review PS3 software. It's mainstream so why waste DC resources asking them to cover something already enormously popular?

I'd rather see the little guy get his day in the sun here. Books, movies, interviews and even the less popular games.


Submitted by Vanvance1 on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 8:28pm.
Floydian Trip's picture

Also, this is not a little niche horror site. They just won an award for best horror website on the internet. And deservedly so. I don't think they wanna think small here. So, in all honesty I think you're on the wrong site.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 12:20pm.
Floydian Trip's picture

As far as the double dipping goes you're not a fan so of course you look at it that way. PJ wanted more time to design a really kickass box set for the extended cuts to release with The Hobbit which is fine by me I'll buy that too although it's gonna cost a helluva lot more than $60. The theatrical cuts are excellent too. I don't find anything wrong with them at all and holy mother of God do they look amazing on Blu-ray. When I first got into HD-DVD and Blu-ray I was dreaming of how good these movies would look and now I have them and nothing that I have seen so far even compares.

Next week Avatar.

EDIT

THe double dipping argument is just stupid in this case. Every LotR's fan in thw world is well aware that the extended cuts are coming out with The Hobbit. It's not like they're trying to pull a fast one and said the theatricals were the only versions being released on Blu-ray. Nobody forced me to buy them I acyually did it of my own free will because these movies are worth it. Does anyone actually complain about there being 4 versions of Blade Runner? Shit, I like them all although I prefer The Final Cut.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 2:32pm.
Floydian Trip's picture

As far as TLotR's being Epic or Dark Fantasy I think by these definitions it's definitely Dark Fantasy. It contains many supernatural elements that are frightening and it's only one book not counting The Hobbit.

The dark fantasy genre is, by definition, dark. It often overlaps both the urban fantasy genre and horror. Vampires, demons rising from the underworld, and Lovecraftian stories are dark fantasy. What makes a story dark
fantasy rather than straight horror is often the medieval type setting, or more emphasis on paranormal themes over simply scaring the pants off the reader.

The high or epic fantasy genre is probably the most recognized by the general public. In high or epic fantasy, knights go on quests, fair maidens need rescuing, and the general theme is usually Good vs. Evil. This fantasy genre is set in a pseudo-medieval world of kings and queens. It often has powerful wizards, bands of adventurers, and multiple quests to undertake. The stories scopes are large and vast, and often spread out over several books in a series.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 11:38am.
Vanvance1's picture

You make a few good points. Often fantasy and SF do cross over with horror. In this case I'd argue that LOTR does not because it has a very non-horror tone.

Examples of horror/fantasy crossing over are Robert E. Howard's 'Red Nails' or any of the Kane stories by Karl Edward Wagner.

So I'd be happy to see DC cover Solomon Kane, but less pleased with Lord of the Rings or Twilight (which is essentially a movie for teen girls interested in romance).


Submitted by Vanvance1 on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 3:23pm.
Floydian Trip's picture

What makes a horror film a horror film to you? When I first read TLotR's it scared me. Those Ringwraiths are some scary, undead motherfuckers. Not to mention all of the other horror elements I mentiomed before, the army of evil spirits, "The way is shut, it was made by those who are dead and the dead keep it" Shelob, what's that monster in the lake called again? The Keeper or something like that. The fire demon The Balrog which is one badass son of a bitch that I wouldn't want to run across even if I was a wizard. Even Gandalf was frightened of it and did not want to travel through the mines of Moria. Mordor is a scary fucking place with orcs that enjoy eating flesh, even eachother. The Ring itself is frightening turning a normal man, or Hobbit out of a lack of remembering what his actual race was called off the top of my head, into the vile creature Gollum and destroying the fellowship and almost taking Frodo. It was the end of the world and the elves were leaving.

The reason I loved the book so much was because of the fact that it was so akin to the horror movies I was watching on TV. I've read tons of fantasy from Conan to Elric but I still think TLotR's is the darkest.

How exactely do you see it?

EDIT

Just a couple of random things to add.

I don't have any complaints about the movies in either version, however, what kind of struck me as a missed opportunity was how the Ringwraiths were limited in the movies. They played a much bigger role in the book and came off as much more frightening and evil than they did in the movies. They were more like puppets in the movies.

Also, I loved PJ from his first film, Bad Taste was it? But when they announced he was going to direct TLotR's I was like "no fucking way will he be able to pull something this epic and important off" I was so skeptical I followed production everyday on the internet and eventually realized somebody in a suit had finally made a great decision. Nobody could have done it better and there's a good reason for them wanting a horror director to direct. I'm guessing they saw the fantasy elements of Heavenly Creatures and were impressed.

I remember you commenting that you wanted a balls to the walls torture flick and saying that you had seen Martyrs. So I'm thinking you're one hardcore motherfucker because I could'nt handle anything worse than Martyrs man I don't even enjoy watching that movie.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 5:41pm.
Vanvance1's picture

It's a hard call. I think we can agree that LOTR is a tent pole for the fantasy genre. It does contain horrific elements but I don't believe an older reader will see it as particularly dark and/or scary.

When you're young and you read fiction you sometimes miss a writer's intent. i.e. When I was a small kid I read a book by Bob Shaw (one of the greatest most underrated SF writers to walk the planet) called 'Who Goes Here?' At the time I thought it was serious and creepy... when I reread it as a teen I instantly knew it was a comedy.

Moorcock's eternal champion books are fantasy. Lord of the Rings is Fantasy.

I love SF, I love Fantasy... I love them like I love blondes and red heads; but my first love will always be brunettes (alias horror).

P.S. Martyrs went balls to the wall, as did Inside. I appreciate intensity. I think horror is an inherently intense genre that plays in areas many aren't comfortable treading. I admire movies that are brave enough to step out of the majority's comfort zone.


Submitted by Vanvance1 on Mon, 04/12/2010 - 4:15am.
Floydian Trip's picture

Yes, The Lord of the Rings is the Godfather of all Fantasy. I wouldn't be playing D&D every weekend if Tolkien hadn't written it.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Mon, 04/12/2010 - 4:05pm.
Floydian Trip's picture

You seem to be missing the point. None of these people write for any other site. At least not that I'm aware of.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 1:09am.
Vanvance1's picture

No, the point is you can easily find what you're looking for elsewhere.

You'd like DC to be an SF and fantasy site as well as horror. That would make it a genre site.

I want DC to stay focused on horror. This is our conflict.


Submitted by Vanvance1 on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 3:52am.
Floydian Trip's picture

That's your conflict because they've said about a thousand times by now that they want to go outside the genre from time to time. I applaud that but wish when they did that they'd cover more of the bigger more important films like TLotR.

Also Clive Barker writes dark fantasy. Would you complain if DC covered it?


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 10:55am.
Terminal's picture

Heartbroken as I am to admit it, LOTR is rather damn dull. Influential? Yes. Brilliant? Yes. Monumental? Yes. Vivid? Yes. Creative? Yes. Etc, etc? God yes.

I could not even make it through the second book and I never finished "The Hobbit" because I simply could not stay awake.

Mind you I did enjoy the movies. I thought Part one was good, Part two excellent, and part three a bit exhausting but otherwise, I wouldn't consider myself a ringer. I do think the books are boring.

And yes New Line sucks. They know they could easily release the extended editions in all their glory first and then release the theatrical editions later, but no they sucker the fan boys in to double/triple/quadriple dipping.

And yes, I gave up after Saw 3 as well. I couldn't take anymore of Jigsaw's crap. I still have a copy of Saw 4 I got a year ago and have yet to build up enough strength to sit down and see it because frankly, I don't give a shit anymore. It's mind numbing. It's "Faces of Death" pretending to have a narrative to it.
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."


Submitted by Terminal on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 9:41pm.
Vanvance1's picture

That's hilarious. I also own a copy of Saw 4. I bought it on the cheap because it was penned by the Feast writers. It's long lost in my piles of DVDs now, I just can't bring myself to watch another.


Submitted by Vanvance1 on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 10:42pm.
Terminal's picture

Yeah, the minute DC becomes a genre site and not a horror site, that is when I seek my lodgings elsewhere.
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."


Submitted by Terminal on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 4:10am.
Terminal's picture

Yeah I have it in a crate with movies I have to review and every time I grab it thinking "Okay, I'm going to watch it right now!" and then I reconsider and put it aside for another day. That happens every week.

I can't take that Saw shit anymore. Part one was good, Part two rocked, and part three was dull as shit, I don't care about the characters, or the traps, or anything of the sort.

Anyway, the bullet point of the argument is, I agree with ninety nine percent of what you've said.
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."


Submitted by Terminal on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 10:50pm.
FireRam's picture

SAW II is my favorite of the franchise. Followed by SAW I. Same with me for the HALLOWEEN franchise. HALLOWEEN2 is my favorite followed by the original. Hell, it was like that for me with the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET franchise also, I liked the sequel more than the original.


Submitted by FireRam on Sun, 04/11/2010 - 9:35pm.
Terminal's picture

Saw 2 was better than part one, but as for the other franchises you mentioned, my preference is more traditional.
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."


Submitted by Terminal on Mon, 04/12/2010 - 3:25pm.
Vanvance1's picture

I'll put my vote in for the original Halloween over the admittedly decent first sequel.

As for Saw; 1 was fine. 2 was competent but already didn't smell fresh and 3 forgot the douche (note to female readers, don't actually do that it's bad for your PH).

Nightmare on Elm Street is a series in which I enjoyed almost all of them. I'll go with Chuck Russell's number 3 as the most enjoyable in the series though (this is leaving out Freddy Vs. Jason which I loved for it's massive cheese factor).


Submitted by Vanvance1 on Mon, 04/12/2010 - 4:13pm.
Floydian Trip's picture

When you say "most gamers" are you referring to the 5 people that played it?

God of War III is the game you guys should be covering not this trash.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 1:20pm.
Vanvance1's picture

Saw is based on a series of horror movies. Granted the series should have ended long ago (say after 1). GoW may be the better game but it's not really horror.

Mind you, defending anything Saw isn't really my thing as I quit after number 3 which I found to be so epically stupid I could never put another Saw disc in my PS3.


Submitted by Vanvance1 on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 2:15pm.
Floydian Trip's picture

This was directed at DC, not you. God of War III is more epic, bloodier and far more brutal than The Clash of the Titans. They want to go outside the genre but then don't cover the best stuff that fits with horror nicely that blows away the vast majority of stuff they do cover and would just be plain 'ol fun for these guys to cover, imo.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy Blu-ray is an example. It's dark fantasy I don't care what anyone says. There are demons, sea monsters, giant spiders with names even because they're so big. The ultimate evil trying to take over the world and was the first breakthrough in mo-cap with the creature Gollum. The entire thing is so bleak and dark, it's almost post-apocolyptic with cannibalism even.

I write a page on the amazing video alone so eye-popping and 3 dimensional, it's like watchinh the film for the first time. As I suspected the new benchmark for reference-quality video and I'm sure another page could be devoted to the audio and of course PJ's trilogy is amazing that it never gets old taking about how great they are.

but they refused to mention it in even the release list.


Submitted by Floydian Trip on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 4:56pm.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.