Connect with us


‘Jigsaw’ Hits $100M, While ‘IT’ Nears $700M at the Box Office!

It was the worst summer movie season in a decade, but us horror fans aren’t sweating it. Our genre killed in 2017, decimating everything in its path. Two films continue to hit milestones, collectively nearing $800 million worldwide.

First, and most notable, is Andy Muschietti‘s IT, the Stephen King adaptation that propelled Pennywise into pop culture stardom, and turned Finn Wolfhard into a superstar. Originally a Warner Bros. production, the film was shifted over to New Line Cinema after a series of budget issues and butting heads with director Cary Fukunaga. Saying IT exceeded expectations is an understatement. As of this writing, the film is just $6M shy of hitting $700M worldwide!

This will be such a tremendous feat and cause for celebration, but let’s not allow other news outlets to convince you it’s the biggest horror film of all time. M. Night Shyamalan‘s The Sixth Sense inflated to top $1B, while William Friedkin‘s The Exorcist adjusts to around $1.8 BILLION. If you want to include Steven Spielberg‘s Jaws, you’re talking over $2 BILLION. Yeesh.

Digressing, let’s take a look at Twisted Pictures and Lionsgate’s Jigsaw, their eighth film in the Saw franchise that I saw called a “failure” and “disappointment” by several publications. It’s far from it, now topping $100M worldwide. Shot on a reported budget of only $10M, it needed to hit approximately $40M to break even, making this a monstrous success. So big, in fact, I could see Jigsaw’s games continuing, maybe even as a television series. The reason many wrote this off as a flop (without doing any investigating) is because Jigsaw, as good as it’s doing, came in about $40M less than its 2010 predecessor, Saw 3D. It’s called diminishing returns, and it’s also been several years since we’ve seen a Saw film in theaters. Frankly, I’m surprised so many people turned out to see it considering the younger generation didn’t grow up with the first eight films.

If you include Split, Get Out, Annabelle: Creation, among other genre films, horror could top $2B this year. I think it’s time the Acadamy takes notice and instead of making fun of our successes (see the Saw “skit” in the 2005 Acadamy Awards) embraces them. For now, we’ll just gloat as a community about how horror is not and never was dead.



  • Grither 57

    The Academy doesn’t deserve us.

    • Saturn

      You’re completely correct.
      This is why I’m turning down the offer of being Johnathon Schaech’s “plus one” when he picks up his award for most Legendary Horror Legend after his career defining role in the new Day Of The Dead movie,

      • Grither 57

        Monday morning “news” – – GET OUT, nominee, Best Picture Musical or Comedy. Golden Globes. The integrity of this organization is now less than zero.

        • Saturn

          Good look to it – it’s an amazing musical!

  • Jigsaw is easily the most worthless entry in the entire series, contributing literally nothing to it. The box office shows that we are still interested in Saw, but the film accomplishes nothing else.

    Hopefully the next film in the series is actually Saw VIII. It should ignore pretty much everything that happened in Jigsaw.

    • Jay Bennett

      Thats the only way to go from here, its been proven that only the fans really care at this point and Jigsaw didnt entice an entire generation to the series, the next should be a true sequel rather than a soft reboot and I guarantee fans will welcome it more.

      • Yeah. It tried to “re-invent” the series, but all it did was repeat everything we’ve seen before with a new visual style (rather than addressing the questions we’ve had since Saw 3D or doing something new). It should have been called Saw 7.1 – That Ship Has Already Sailed.

      • Saturn

        Gotta disagree that it’s “only the fans that really care at this point” as if it were, it’s doubtful that Jigsaw would have made 100 million on the back of us alone.

        For a movie, any movie (aside from the obvious massive franchise blockbusters) to make 100 million at the box office it’s a big deal.
        The movie has made more than the film makers had expected, plus there are home sales/rentals to take into account also, so Jigsaw has been quite the success, which will probably lead to at least one more sequel.

        • I doubt it made what the filmmakers expected, given how they made the film with the intention of “taking back Halloween”. For seven years, Saw was Lionsgate’s big cash cow and they wanted to reclaim that.

          The film may have outgrossed its budget, but it would have made a lot more if it had truly landed with fans/audiences. Relatively speaking, the film is a failure. Just as Texas Chainsaw 3D outgrossed its budget, but did not make meet expectations (critically or commercially) and ended up failing to establish Texas Chainsaw as their new big franchise.

    • Tyler McPherson

      Absolutely agree. The only way they should continue from Jigsaw is if they bring in old characters in either flashbacks or present day (Dr. Gordon or Hoffman perhaps?). I just want a real sequel, not a movie that is a 1/3 sequel/1/3 prequel/1/3 spin-off.

      • Yeah, it addressed none of the loose ends from the previous films. Instead, it repeated the plot to Saw II and Saw IV with YET ANOTHER secret apprentice and by contradicting Jigsaw’s established origin story. We need a real Saw VIII (preferably explanating what happened to Doctor Gordon and the other questions we’ve had), and not another “Greatest Hits” album of a movie that tries to re-invent everything.

        • Nahuel Benvenuto

          the problem is, everything was answered in VII in the worst possible way, rendering the franchise unwatchable and senseless all around, they could continue the story, but at this point they shoudl do something very different with the saga, and not a watered down version of it like with Jigsaw

          • Actually, almost nothing was answered in Saw 3D. The only thing it really revealed was the Doctor Gordon twist, which raised even more questions.

            We still don’t even know what Jigsaw’s ultimate endgame was. In Saw VI, it was mentioned by Mark Hoffman that “Jigsaw’s game is almost up” (and the films kept building toward something). Then in the Saw 3D trailer, John Kramer says that “All have my work was been leading to this.” Then the film came out, and it just ignored all of it.

            There’s still so many things that need to be addressed, especially with them adding Doctor Gordon on top of it.


  • Fingers crossed.

  • I’d argue that Pennywise was already a part of the pop culture stardom

    • The new IT was great, but it also bothers me when people say that it made Pennywise a horror icon. He has been a horror icon ever since Tim Curry.

      • I acutually didn’t loved the new movie but personal taste notwithstanding i agree with you.

      • Trav

        That’s true, the new movie was fantastic, and the better adaption, but Pennywise was already a horror icon well before the 2017 version. I really enjoyed what Skarsgard brought to the role, but I don’t know if his Pennywise will ever be as recognizable as Tim Curry’s Pennywise.

        • Saturn

          Personally i don’t believe that Pennywise was a horror movie icon before now.
          Blasphemy I know, because he’d have been pretty well known to horror fans of a certain age, but I know a handful of younger horror fans who’d never heard of the original IT before the remake, so an icon? No. Maybe now, maybe….

          My reasoning?

          Well, let’s go back around a year or so and imagine the scene where I’m talking to random strangers on the street “I’m going to show you some images, see if you recognise them from horror movies”…..a hockey mask, a bladed glove, a white captain kirk mask, a dead skin mask, an axe, billy the puppet, a scream mask” – now, I can guarantee that most of them will recognise most of those items almost immediately – but how many of them would recognise something like a red balloon, or more obviously a clown? I’d hazard a guess that not many would – unless of course they were horror fans in general, who would recognise phantasm balls if they were shown, whereas a typical audience wouldn’t..
          Now though things would be different due to the success of IT at the box office.
          Even now though, would I consider Pennywise to be an horror icon? If I’m truly honest, perhaps not. Not yet.

          • I knew plenty of younger and casual viewers that knew what Pennywise and IT were because of Tim Curry. If it wasn’t already iconic, the new film wouldn’t have been anywhere near as anticipated as it was.

          • Saturn

            Perhaps you’re right. I dunno.

      • Papa_spoosh

        I didn’t even know people were only now considering him an icon. Very silly… maybe horror “movie” icon because the original is technically a miniseries but Tim Curry has had a seat at the horror icon table since 1990 as far concerned. I’d say Skaarsgard has a seat right next to him now though

  • Brian McNatt

    Okay, we get it, horror is huge right now. You don’t need to go on about people calling the horror genre dead in every article reporting a hit movie or box office milestone.

  • Creepshow

    Profitable numbers for bad horror movies don’t impress me. Jigsaw and so many other horror movies are like “fidget spinners” at gas stations. If you make “junk” cheap enough, some meatheads will buy it.

    • Jay Bennett

      Perfect analogy

    • Exactly. Jigsaw may have surpassed its low budget, but it’s hardly a success. Remember, Saw was Lionsgate’s cash cow for several years straight and Jigsaw was meant to reclaim that spot and “take back Halloween”… Which it failed to do.

      Lionsgate’s Texas Chainsaw 3D also surpassed its budget and was meant to replace the Saw franchise in 2013. It didn’t make quite as much, but we all know what a success that was. I won’t be surprised if we go another few years (at least) without seeing another Saw.

    • Saying Like It Is

      But it’s R rated “junk” which is harder to sell. If the profits encourage studios to produce more adult horror then bring it on.

      • I think all of the previous Saw films, Deadpool, IT, Logan, ETC, have all proven that an R-rating is no longer an excuse for under-performing. Performing below expectations (as Jigsaw did) isn’t going to encourage anything. I won’t be surprised if we don’t get another Saw film for at least another 3-5 years, which is a damn shame considering we still haven’t gotten a proper Saw VIII.

        • Saying Like It Is

          I don’t disagree but there is a difference between something under performing vs completely bombing so who knows maybe we’ll get another Saw and with a tweaked formula it could be successful.

          • Yeah, if it bombed, the chances of another Saw in the near future would be close to zero. Thankfully it didn’t, so we can hopefully still get Saw VIII. I agree that they need to do something other than repeat the same plotpoints, like Jigsaw did. I thought the idea of an entire cult was fascinating, but that just was false marketing for Jigsaw.

        • Nahuel Benvenuto

          i would say we havent got a proper Saw VII, given that the movie carrying that name ruined the story of the whole franchise

          • But at least that film moved the story forward in some regard. Jigsaw literally contributed nothing to the franchise, much less wrapping up the loose ends that Saw 3D refused to (or the even bigger loose ends that it introduced to the series).

      • Creepshow

        You make a good point. But a lot of times, junk is junk. No matter what the age group it’s aimed for.

      • ForskinCutter

        No one wants to see Saw PG-13…gtfoh

    • Bloodspatta

      Agreed. So what if these trashy, shitty horror movies make money cause they cost fuck all to make. They’re the Big Macs of cinema.

  • Nahuel Benvenuto

    100m WORLDWIDE for the Saw franchise is pretty low

    • Saturn

      It was never going to do Avengers numbers, was it?
      Perhaps the movie hasn’t performed as well as the studio execs had hoped for, but I reckon that they will be fairly happy with the returns so far, and will consider that it’s not bad at all for an 8th movie in a horror franchise which had a few years off.
      Oh yes, there will be more blood….

      • But it didn’t make Saw numbers either… I’m sure they’re satisfied that it made a lot of money, but that’s as far as it goes.

  • Captain_Heh

    The movie has grossed over 100 million (lookin to top out at around 105 million) at the box office. It had a 10 million dollar budget. If you think Lionsgate is highly disappointed with those numbers you’re nuts. Saw 3d made about 135m worldwide on a budget twice as big. Jigsaw isn’t setting the world afire, but it’s far from disappointing.

    • That’s nothing for a Saw film. Particularly one meant to reinvigorate the franchise and “take back Halloween.” It’s not a bomb, but it’s unquestionably a box office disappointment. On a $10 million budget, the film would have had to try really hard not to make its budget back multiple times over.

      • Captain_Heh

        It’s doing fine. It will top out around 10 million behind Saw 5 worldwide.

        • On such a meager budget, it would be more difficult not to make its budget back several times over. It performed below the studio’s expectations, making it a relative failure. Nobody’s getting fired, but they sure aren’t celebrating either.

          • Captain_Heh

            Fair enough. I think they’re celebrating, but they aren’t over the moon. It has made over 10x its production budget before digital/disc/cable. If They ever thought the eighth film in a horror series would be the cash cow the second or third was, they were out of their minds. Relatively speaking, this is a near near case scenario. I can’t think of a series like this offhand that performed in such a healthy way by the 7th sequel.

          • Captain_Heh

            Near best case. Autocorrect.

          • At least it didn’t bomb. I myself am hoping that they make more films continuing from the first seven (maybe they can connect the Dark Web plotpoint from Jigsaw in with Doctor Gordon and a potential cult of believers).

          • Captain_Heh

            I’m with you on that one, buddy. I love the thought that goes into this series.

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            Bringing back Doctor Gordon is the worst thing they can do. The writers copped out for Saw 3D and decided to allow autistic fanfiction to become a reality with the Doctor Gordon apprentice twist. It’s awful and makes no fucking sense. Bringing back possibly the most hated aspect of the original series would be a big mistake.

            They should move away from the original series because it’s such a clusterfuck and focus on new characters. The average moviegoer doesn’t remember barely anything from the original series aside from the Kramer character. Bringing in past characters will do nothing but confuse average audiences and discourage them from returning.

          • They most certainly need to address it, even if he’s not the new main antagonist. It might be necessary to use him in flashbacks (if not bringing him back completely), regardless of your opinion on it.

            “Bringing back possibly the most hated aspect…”

            Most hated by YOU. The films had been hinting at the twist since Saw II and many viewers had already predicted it before it happened. Most of the fan outcry stemmed from it raising more questions than it answered.

            Part of the problem is that Saw 3D was originally intended to be split into two films, but Lionsgate only allowed them to make one more movie (so it did an awful job of wrapping up the series). Jigsaw was a massive wasted opportunity.

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            “They most certainly need to address it, even if he’s not the new main antagonist.”
            There’s nothing to address. The flashback sequence didn’t even imply that he had any intentions of continuing the legacy, he was just someone who Kramer called in for favors whenever he needed a surgical task. He’s alive, we have all the info we ever need on Gordon. The authorities have no idea he’s worked with Jigsaw. The only thing they should dare address are Amanda / Hoffman, just in passing conversation they could mention his accomplices are dead (or presumed dead).

            “Most hated by YOU. The films had been hinting at the twist since Saw II and many viewers had already predicted it before it happened. Most of the fan outcry stemmed from it raising more questions than it answered.”
            Hated by anyone who likes their movies to not cater towards fanfiction. Bousman denounced the theory about the figure on Michael’s tape being Gordon. The apprentice reveal is not something they planned, almost everything in this series was made up as they went along and it shows. They considered bringing back Gordon several times throughout the series, not as an apprentice because that’s retarded garbage the autistic 13 year old fanboys kept drudging up, but as someone trying to get revenge on Jigsaw / his apprentices. Bringing back Gordon would be a fine move with potential for an interesting story, but not as an apprentice. It’s pants on head retarded that they should avoid mentioning at all costs.

            Yes, 3D was supposed to be two movies. Part One would end with Doctor Gordon standing over Bobby in hospital. Part Two would still end with the awful apprentice reveal. The horrible writing is not something to be celebrated. Basically the writers copped out, they had no idea how to end this series so let (the dumber) fanboys write it for them.

          • Again, you are applying YOUR negative opinion to film itself (and the entire fanbase). While you didn’t like the twist, there is still a lot that needs to be addressed. We know basically nothing, besides that he is “Jigsaw’s greatest asset”, that he played a role in Jigsaw’s endgame (which we still don’t know what it is), and that he made the traps medically possible. We don’t even know who the two other Pigheads were. According to the writers, they were intended to be Brad and Ryan, but that scene was removed. They could literally be anyone. You can stick your head in the sand because you didn’t like the twist all you want, but there are so many loose ends…

            And it’s not “fan fiction”, given that it was set it up as early as Saw II (hints were also dropped in Saw III, Saw V, and Saw VI). The fan theory stemmed from the hints in the actual films (not the other way around). If they ever do introduce the cult that kept getting teased in the marketing for Jigsaw, there’s a decent chance that Gordon had something to do with its creation.

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            My negative opinion is the general consensus shared by most. By greatest asset he’s just referring to the medical favors he did. In actuality the only one he should’ve been responsible for was Michael’s trap, you don’t need a doctor to sew someone’s eyes shut. The two Pigheads were clarified on the commentary to be Brad and Ryan. The reason they never removed the pig masks is because in the original ending (which was filmed) Gordon enlisted the help of the survivor group to take down Hoffman. In that original ending the identity of the masked figures was irrelevant, the point was they were two random Jigsaw survivors. All of the survivors would be standing outside the bathroom with Gordon.

            It is fanfiction. Did you even read my comment? I said Bousman denounced the limping figure on Michael’s tape being Gordon. They considered bringing Gordon back several times, never as an apprentice, but as a survivor seeking revenge on Jigsaw / the apprentices. If this was planned from the beginning, having him seek revenge would never ever be on the table as a potential storyline. “I was his patient and he was mine”, as in his victim, Jigsaw believes he’s helping people. The I KNOW WHO YOU ARE note was originally written by Jill, but then they changed their mind when in 6 they decided Jill and Hoffman are already aware of each other. It was made up as they went along. Namedropping Gordon doesn’t mean they’re hinting at anything, it’s just namedropping. The fan theories didn’t stem from the hints, the fan theories stemmed from aimless speculation. When 2 introduced the idea of Jigsaw having apprentices the 13 year old boys would spend the next six years screaming on the message boards “wouldn’t it be cool if Gordon came back as an apprentice” just because they want to apply the apprentice twist to a main character who’s fate is still in the air. No, it was not cool, it never would’ve been cool, the apprentice twist was already ridiculous with Hoffman. Then they had to bring Gordon into the picture too?

            The original series does have unanswered questions but none of them are what you’re saying. They shouldn’t bother answering them because the original series is, while very fun, is an absolute narrative mess. Spending five minutes of screentime in any of the 90 minute Jigsaw sequels to explain any one of the mysteries of original series is a waste of time. General audiences do not care, even the ones who have seen the original series barely remember anything about them, let alone specific mysteries only die hard Saw autists will recall.

            I’m sure the fansite will play a role in Jigsaw 2 with users starting up their own games to challenge Logan for betraying Jigsaw’s legacy by murdering Edgar.

          • *Sigh*

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            Great argument.

          • (You seem upset, seeing as you went on an upvoting spree with everyone in sight who has disagreed with me, including an obvious troll; Are you okay?)

            You claim that your opinion is “the general consensus shared by most”, yet the only person I see that’s this outspokenly against it is you. If you are this adamant that the twist “ruined the franchise”, then stop watching it. The cat is already out of the bag. There’s no sweeping it under the rug now, unless they stop making sequels altogether.

            Darren Lyn Bousman does not control the franchise. And of course they wouldn’t want the public to know about the twist before it happened. (BTW, how would you explain the limping?) Like it or not, this was quite clearly planned years in advance. You can create all kinds of justifications in your head, but we know Doctor Gordon was the one being teased considering that many of the clues pertained specifically to him, including the blood trail in front of the sliding door in Saw V (which was brought back in Saw 3D, revealed to be the bathroom door and Gordon’s blood), Jill dropping a note to Doctor Gordon at the hospital in Saw VI, Doctor Gordon’s shirt being seen briefly in a hallway in Saw III, ETC. The writers even stated that it was planned in advance.

            And yes, the mentionings of Doctor Gordon did play a role in leading to the twist; I don’t recall Adam getting repeatedly mentioned or anyone else getting referenced that many times. We know that the medical knowledge wasn’t the only reason that Gordon was his “greatest asset”, seeing as he also helped set the traps and was involved with punishing Hoffman (there’s another loose end – Hoffman’s fate). We don’t know the full extent of Gordon’s involvement, what he did during all of the other films, what happened after he locked up Hoffman, who the other two Pigheads were, what Jigsaw’s ultimate endgame was, and so much more.

            If you think it was all “aimless speculation”, that Gordon’s return was never hinted at, and that there are no loose ends, you really need to go back and re-watch all seven films. Regardless, it already happened. It’s done. Let’s not stick our heads in the sand because you didn’t like it.

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            I’m upset because I upvoted someone for roasting you? Impressive leaps of logic. If you stepped out of the echo chamber which is your own head and checked the Saw message boards everyone shits on the Gordon twist for being a lazy cop out. Him being namedropped is not a clue. Seeing his blood trail is not a clue. It’s called continuity. I never once said it “ruined the franchise”, no need to put it in quotation marks, but it is a ridiculously stupid twist that they should avoid bringing up again at all costs.

            While 6 was in production they had decided on 7 and 8 being the last movies, so yes, obviously the Gordon reveal was finalized by then, especially since they told Zombie Studios to hastily remove Gordon from the videogame at the last second which was also being released alongside 6, yet another blow to your head canon. They would not of given Zombie Studios the go ahead with their take on Gordon’s fate if they had already decided they have no idea how to end the series and just wanted to follow fanfiction.

            The extent of his involvement, from what we have seen, were medical favors, giving him info on Lynn, writing the I KNOW WHO YOU ARE note (for no reason other than the writers had to tie up that loose end in a quick, cheap way) and killing Hoffman. What happened to Gordon after he locked up Hoffman is not a mystery. He went on with his life. I already explained who the two Pigheads were.

            I know these movies inside and out, both in terms of the finished products and from the production standpoint. I’ll repeat this for the second or third time. They considered bringing Gordon back numerous times as someone seeking revenge on Jigsaw / the apprentices. This never would’ve been considered if they wanted him to be an apprentice. But I’m sure you’ll keep your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that though. Just keep repeating the same shit I already ripped apart in each reply.

          • Meh. I’m honestly bored with this conversation, which appears to be stuck in a standstill. We obviously disagree, and that’s perfectly acceptable.

            Having read only the first sentence, what I will say is that you have a laughable understanding of the word “roast”.

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            Quality response per usual, never once responded to my arguments. Not surprised.

          • LOL

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            Great job.

          • disqus_JGr7FxyRat

            Still here dreaming of the day you’ll provide an argument.

          • Jonathon Knight

            (guzzles a gallon jug of your tears) ih god so salty but so damn GOOOOOODDDDDD

          • Weresmurf

            Take this into account. This is a movie series that has, at this point, cost a total of 77.2 million across 8 movies to create (give or take 1 – 2 million total).

            In total however, the boxoffice for these movies is approximately 937 million in total:
            SAW BUDGET $1.2m TAKINGS $103,911,669
            SAW 2 BUDGET $4m TAKINGS $147,748,505
            SAW 3 BUDGET $10m TAKINGS $164,874,275
            SAW 4 BUDGET $10m TAKINGS $139,352,633
            SAW 5 BUDGET $10.8m TAKINGS $113,864,059
            SAW 6 BUDGET $11m TAKINGS $68,233,629
            SAW 7 BUDGET $20m TAKINGS $136,150,434
            JIGSAW BUDGET $10m TAKINGS $100,750,218

            Not one of these has been a disappointment and the closest to underperforming was part 6, which was still considered a success due to its low budget (also one of the critically praised ones due to its message about the healthcare system). If you do a quick google, you’ll find Lionsgate has been ecstatic with their performance. They’ve made back budget, advertising costs and funded the next movie in the series clean out of the gate, hence the series keeps going on and on and now we’re likely to get a Jigsaw 2 either next year or the year after. The total for the series to this point?

            Cost: 77m. Takings: $974,885,422

            Almost one billion dollars for a series whose entire budget across 8 movies has yet to top 100 million dollars. I’d say Lionsgate is pretty goddamn happy at this point and not worried about any of them underperforming.

          • Is that why the box office of Saw VI killed the series to the point that their plans for Saw VII and Saw VIII had to be shoved into one film (Saw 3D)?

            The low box office for Saw VI and 3D is the reason they ended it. You’re fooling yourself if you don’t call that a “disappointment”.

            And those films made substantially more than $100 million dollars. Numbers like $36,150,434; $39,352,633; $64,874,275; and $47,746,505 equal the majority of Saw VI and Saw 3D‘s entire box office. It looks closer than it is.

            It didn’t bomb, but it certainly didn’t meet expectations.

          • Weresmurf

            You’re using domestic takings. They took far more than that on tbe world wide stage and you know it. I pointed out Saw 6 under performed. Saw 7 then did quite decently. Thankfully they waited quite a while before doing another. The worldwide takings for all of them speak for themselves.

          • I’m not using domestic takings, I’m using the same damn numbers you presented. Those are the worldwide box office numbers… And you know it.


            Perhaps you should re-read my comment. “And those films made SUBSTANTIALLY MORE than $100 million dollars. Numbers like $36,150,434; $39,352,633; $64,874,275; and $47,746,505 equal the majority of Saw VI and Saw 3D’s entire box office.”

          • Weresmurf

            Not one of those numbers lines up with Boxoffice Mojos worldwide or domestic takings for Saw 6 or 7, even on the link you provided. You’re doing some amazing mental gymnastics here that’d make the North Koreans proud dude.

            When a movie makes 1000% above its budget, it’s considered a hit, especially when there was a minimal amount spent on the movie and advertising. I know you want to proclaim it a loss, or ‘not a hit’, for some ungodly reason. Maybe you’re too used to seeing comicbook movie billion dollar numbers, but maybe you need to get out a bit and research how Blumhouse was built, on movies that garnered this kind of takings. Minimal expenditure, maximum profit.

            These movies are unquestionable hits with some minor dips here and there but only one single larger of note, with takings that exceeded all expenditure, movies that turned pure profit and exceeded expectations, that brought in money and even at a point where the series waned and they did reduce the forecasted number of sequels which noone has disputed, the movies were still considered successful, which is evident as years later they returned with a further sequel and now there’s chatter of further sequels still.

            But hey, you’re not bothering with facts, you’re just bothering with mental gymnastics, so vault away buddy, vault away.

          • “Not one of those numbers lines up with Boxoffice Mojos worldwide or domestic takings…”

            Good god, what part of “Over $100 million” do you not understand? This is going off of the exact numbers you and Box Office Mojo presented. There are no “mental gymnastics”, just your failure to read or comprehend a single comment.

            I, again, suggest you take another good long look at my comment before wasting another four paragraphs on a non-sequitur argument.


          • “When a movie makes 1000% above its budget, it’s considered a hit…”

            No, when a film doesn’t make as much as the studio wants/expects it to and performs lower than the standard if its franchise, that is called underperforming.

            No one claims that it bombed, but with a budget of $10 million, it would have had to go completely out of its way not not to make its budget back. You are trying to make it sound like the film accomplished some impressive feat that it clearly didn’t.

          • Saying Like It Is

            Studios will always want more money but considering it’s the 8th film in the series that didn’t do anything new and yet still made a 100 million without a 3D surplus must tell them there’s still something there.

          • And if it had truly landed with fans/audiences, it would have made a lot more money. For $100 million, that’s nothing impressive for a Saw film. The only reason it looks impressive is because of the substantially low budget. It underperformed, there’s no dancing around that.

  • Dennis Giles

    There will never be a conclusion to “Saw” .
    It’s a new generation of horror that will see it fail eventually.
    The audience of a new generation will mock these films simply because conclusion is a key part of the viewing.
    I accept “Saw”s faults but I did enjoy some of them,won’t go into details in case god forbid I offend a opinion.
    “IT” will too have its records and fans but lets hope there’s no spin offs.

    • Saturn

      So you’re not looking forward to the proposed cross-over movie that’s in the works, It Follows IT?

    • Except Jigsaw mostly failed to win over any new fans to the series. Making Saw VIII is the way to go, unless they want to alienate even more fans than they have.

      • Jonathon Knight

        Oh stop crying already. Or keep crying. I love the taste of your salty tears.

        • Says the person so agitated by my opinionated comments that he felt that need to troll two of my posts at once. You know that Disqus has a block feature, right?

  • Papa_spoosh

    The desire you guys have to write about the crazy milestones IT has crossed and yet immediate need to tell us not to over exaggerate the numbers is so stupid. Inflation is not a measurable offset considering the MASSIVE changes in cinema since these movies came out.if it was in 3D and you were comparing it to a movie for just a decade ago, id indulge but back when the other heavy hitters came out, going to the movies was an event not to be missed and people didn’t just wait for it to come out on video in a couple of months. Or pirate, or find leaked screanplays or over watch trailers and bore themselves prior. Back then the marketing and theater could control your interest and not they cannot.

    • Bloodspatta

      Agreed. With every article praising IT, it’s quickly followed by the inflation smack down. Fuck off with that shit and be happy its a monster success.

      • Papa_spoosh

        I think horror has plenty of oscar potential… just in the make up of effects category lol. I wouldn’t want it any other way.

      • Brett Lovejoy

        You’re better off once you realize all these awards shows are a joke and totally insignificant and irrelevant – then it makes your favorite films not receiving a nom that much easier to swallow.

    • Saturn

      You, sir, are correct.
      We often hear “taking into account inflation in regards to The Exorcist” (as an example) that movie has made more.
      Thing is that The Exorcist was a cultural phenomenon when it was released (a game changer, so to speak, one that would wreck you), which has had re-releases galore over the years – and existed in a time before digital download piracy, or general home video piracy.
      To compare them is unfair, when we are living in a world where you can often be the only person, or one of a handful, at a screening of a movie – whereas upon a time the cinemas were booming!

      Let’s just be happy that certain genre films we enjoy are doing well, and hope it leads to more decent genre fare.

    • They only started blabbing on about inflation because people kept bringing it up because they were annoyed at hearing about the success of IT all the time. I agree with you though, I’d rather celebrate the success of a horror movie than try to shoot it down. IT was a MASSIVE success and a great movie, well deserved.

    • Beatnation

      People just don’t unerstand inflation, you need to measure th quantity of sold tickets nothow much those tickets cost on that time.

  • And no mention for HDD which has surpassed Jigsaw cume with half the budget?

  • Evan

    I’m extremely happy as a Saw fan that the film was able to hit the 100 million mark. This film was so hated on before being released and was being rooted by so many people to fail. I’m glad it didn’t end of flopping, but I will say it definitely did not perform how Lionsgate wanted. The worldwide market for this film was actually impressive, but domestically this film only making 38 million is disappointing. The legs of this film were actually better than almost all the previous films so that was a somewhat good sign.

    In my opinion Lionsgate dropped the ball with marketing and thought there was more interest for the film then there really was. They released only 1 trailer for this film and only 3 months before the movie came out. They marketed this movie the same way they did the previous Saw sequels which was the wrong way. Anyway it still made a shit ton of money for Lionsgate and they had to barely do any promoting for it besides 1 month prior. It’s an easy film to make money on. If anything they cut the budget or keep it at 10 million for Jigsaw II and will easily make a profit again.

    This film series is just slightly 25 million dollars away from grossing 1 billion worldwide. That is a feat of its own that shows how big this series was and is. Jigsaw performed better than Halloween, Rings, Scream 4 and Texas chainsaw’s reboots.

    • It wasn’t hated because we rooted for it to fail. Most Saw fans and horror fans (including myself) wanted it to succeed. It is hated because it was a worthless entry that added nothing to the series.

      It didn’t continue the unfinished story of the previous films, it repeated the same exact twists from Saw II and Saw IV, it lied to the audience by having modernised traps in flashbacks, the traps were also over-the-top and ridiculous, there were no decent characters, it revealed YET ANOTHER secret apprentice, the little gore that was in the film was ruined by bad CGI, it retconned Jigsaw’s origin even more (this time introducing continuity errors into the franchise), the killer was a carbon copy of Mark Hoffman, ETC. Aside from the visual style and music score, there was nothing valuable or redeemable in that film.

      Look around. There’s a reason that there’s a bigger demand for Saw VIII than Jigsaw II.

      • Evan

        I personally enjoyed Jigsaw because I knew going into it that it was a reboot and wasn’t going to be connected to the previous movies. That’s the problem with the marketing, they didn’t really tell the audience one way another if this was SAW VIII or a reboot. It ended up being a reboot and some people were pissed that it didn’t continue on from SAW 3D. Personally I hated Saw 3D so much that I’m content with it starting fresh, and I don’t want to spoil anything but I thought the twists weren’t bad and I like how they loosely connected it to the past SAW movies.

        Lionsgate never wanted to make SAW VIII, they wanted to reboot this while keeping it in the same timeline so that literally anyone could watch Jigsaw and understand everything going on.

        • But Jigsaw wasn’t a reboot. It was a sequel… And one that didn’t address any of the loose ends or questions we’ve had for the last seven years. They made references to the previous films, such as Jigsaw dying in Saw III, there being other copycat killers (Saw IV – VII), showing traps from the previous films as Easter Eggs, ETC. A reboot would be if they set it in a new continuity entirely, which they didn’t. The film plays out like a cross between a standard sequel and a spin-off about another random apprentice that we’ve conveniently never seen or heard about before… Where was this guy and why did he wait ten years to finally show up?

          If they wanted to make a soft reboot that continues Saw III, a full on spin-off, or a full reboot, then they should have done that instead of making a confused sequel that pretends you don’t remember the other movies.

          But in my opinion, even if Jigsaw was a reboot, I don’t think it would make much of a difference since it still retreads everything we’ve seen before instead of doing something new, and doesn’t contribute anything to the franchise. When I walked out of the theatre, I felt ripped-off by how unbelievably shallow and pointless the film was. They didn’t even set anything up for future installments; that film is the very definition of a cash grab.

          • Evan

            I guess I should have said it was a soft reboot. Jigsaw takes place in the same universe and everything that happened in Saw – Saw 3D did occur in this timeline, but they are choosing to start a new story line unrelated to the previous movies (at least for Jigsaw).

            Plus I honestly don’t really think much was left unanswered in Saw 3D, but to each their own. The whole point of Jigsaw was to make a standalone movie that could act on its own. If it set itself up for a sequel that would feel more like a cash grab in my opinion. They tried to make this movie be on its own for anyone to watch, not just a movie for the Old SAW fans. They wanted to try and entice new Saw fans but they obviously failed.

            Anyway if they do a Jigsaw II I actually think they would go the route of Days of Future Past and make it a sequel to Jigsaw AND to Saw 3D. I think that would be cool.

          • If it wanted to start a new story, then it should have just done that instead of repeating everything we’ve seen before. It came across more as a Greatest Hits album than a new chapter or a soft reboot. IMO, I also don’t think you can shove everything under the rug in a franchise like this (especially one built on story, characters, twists, and gore).

            “I actually think they would go the route of Days of Future Past and make it a sequel to Jigsaw AND to Saw 3D.”

            Normally I would absolutely agree with that, but where do you go after Jigsaw? The villain (I don’t know his name; I always call him Mark Hoffman 2.0) already got his revenge and I doubt anyone is interested in seeing him become the new main antagonist of the franchise. He’s a bland character and we already had Hoffman around for four movies. Everyone else in the film died. They could probably tie the Dark Web thing into a larger Jigsaw cult, but that’s about it.

            The only direction they can take the series is to either start over again, (which would cause more outcry among fans), or make Saw VIII with loose connections to Jigsaw. Hopefully, this series doesn’t become straight-to-V.O.D., like Hostel and Texas Chainsaw Massacre did.

    • I’m still yet to see it, but I wanted to say I actually liked the marketing, design wise. It (for the most part) got rid of the grunge and splatter and took a bit of a cleaner, dark approach. The only problem was that when the trailer came out it came across as more of the same, and I lost interest at that point.

      I’ll still watch it when I get the chance because I’m a Saw fan, but I still think the franchise is forever going to live under the shadow of the first trilogy, and will never get any better than that.

      • Evan

        The movie as a whole has a completely different look to it then it has in the past. It is a much cleaner looking movie which I really liked. It’s not as bad as people make it out to be, but it’s nothing different then the previous SAW sequels. To me it’s somewhere between my 3rd-4th favorite SAW movie. I really liked how different, but similar at the same time.

    • Evan3

      I don’t know who you are, but stop giving us Evans a bad name by supporting trash like Jigsaw!

  • Francesco Falciani

    well done Jigsaw… now jigsaw 9 please

  • Brett Lovejoy

    I’m sure for a $10 million budget they had hoped to make much more than $100 million worldwide, but making about six times what you spent on the budget at the end of the day? Not bad whatsoever.

  • Evan3

    Why wouldn’t Split, Get Out, and Annabelle Creation be considered part of the horror genre? That is a dumbfounding query. Wasn’t Happy Death Day a moderate success as well?

    Also, anyone else rolling in the aisles at the outrageous hyperbole of calling finn wolfhard a superstar? I had to google him to even figure out which kid it was. He was, at best, the fifth most important kid in that movie.

More in Movies