Why Producers Make Sequels: The Saw Phenomenon

In most arenas of life, money talks, and the movie business is no exception. Seeing how financially profitable story lines are rarely a sure thing, even among the best of the ever-prolific assortment of unread screenplays entombed in the desks of executives, one could understand producers’ eagerness to milk the teat of a particularly successful film through the production of a considerably less entertaining series of sequels, even to the point of beating a good idea to death (see The Land Before Time). Whether or not the creators of Saw have already reached that point must remain a decision of the viewing public, but if financial figures are any indication of public opinion, it would appear that we have not seen the last of the series. With the release of the box office totals for the past week, it is plainly clear that the Saw concept, which I considered washed up and overdone with the series’ third installment, will persist as long as blood-lusting viewers continue to pay as lucratively as they did this weekend. Saw IV, released this past Friday, completely obliterated the competition, garnering an astonishing (estimated) 32.4 million dollars, according to the Movie City News, through the course of its opening weekend. Its nearest competitors: Dan in Real Life at 12 million and 30 Days of Night at 6.6 million.

Regardless of one’s opinion of the original “Jigsaw” idea of a serial killer who (as the first film so explicitly notes) fails to fit the traditional classification of murderer because he does not personally kill his victims, the popularity of the concept speaks for itself, and increasing production budgets allotted to each successive film (at 1 million, 4 million, and 10 million dollars, respectively) reflect that popularity amongst moviegoers. Many critics, however, share my distaste for the series and are not as supportive of the cinematically unexceptional films as the public. In her review, Jeanette Catsoulis of the New York Times opens with the criticism that "the Saw franchise took a novel, if distasteful, idea and basically tortured it to death." Although the novel concept presented by the first Saw did achieve unexpected levels of success, the decision to develop the story into a series has severely damaged its image in the eyes of many critics. As Catsoulis asserts, "while the clever, low budget execution of the original's Darwinian premise-kill or be killed-commands a queasy respect, its creators, James Wan and Leigh Whannel, should have rejoiced in their unexpected success and moved on."

Many critics have elaborated on Catsoulis’ general criticism of the Saw movies and described Saw IV as setting a new low, even for horror remakes and Lionsgate’s gruesome series, attacking a varying yet prolific number of weaknesses in the film. Nick Schlager of Slant Magazine critiques the lack of originality in the fourth Saw installment, calling the film "an excessively convoluted rehash of its predecessors," all of which failed to offer much to begin with. Saw II has grossed the most box office profit to this point, but the first sequel’s financial success is more a tribute to the public’s approval of its predecessor. In reading critics’ opinions, it appears that Saw IV continues the trend of increased “shock value.” Peter Sobcynski of EFILMCRITIC.com goes goes so far as to describe the time spent viewing Saw IV as "two of the more degrading and debasing hours of big-screen 'entertainment' that you are likely to endure in this lifetime." Nathan Rabin of the Onion AV Club echoes Sobcynski’s criticism, while also acknowledging the potential financial success of the film, dubbing it "a commercially savvy though ultimately empty combination of warped morality tale, mystery, gore-fest, and torture porn."

Without disrespecting the opinions of Catsoulis, Schlager, Sobcynski, Rabin, and others (including myself), it is important to note that the Saw movies were not created to impress critics; they were made to make money, and from a purely financial standpoint, the series has been a resounding success, which will continue as such until moviegoers’ visual bloodlust is satiated. Ultimately, the viewing public is responsible for what topics, stories, and visual images reach and repeatedly appear on the big screen through the money they spend on said cinematic endeavors, and as long as that public continues to endorse films that reflect the more sadistic nature of our collective psyche, producers will continue to make sequels and the like. From a producer’s standpoint, it makes no sense to fix what is not broken. Therefore, until it is financially necessary, what need is there for change and originality? None, because money talks.