Jump to content

Talk:Saw (film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,621 edits
m Signing comment by 91.18.3.142 - "→plot holes?: "
Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Article history
{{Film|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=no|B-Class-5=yes|American-task-force=yes|Australian-task-force=yes}}
|action1=GAN
{{HorrorWikiProject|class=Start|saw-task-force=yes}}
|action1date=00:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
{{FAOL|Russian|ru:Пила: Игра на выживание (фильм)}}
|action1link=Talk:Saw (film)/GA1
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=454000564

|currentstatus=GA
|topic=film
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Horror|saw-task-force=yes|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}


==References to use==
== American Horror Film????? ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 20:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC) -->
How can this be an American Horror film when the principle authors are Australian (or based in Australia) and the production company is Canadian? And while Canada is in America, the American Horror link goes to the USA Cinema page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.251.20.3|64.251.20.3]] ([[User talk:64.251.20.3|talk]]) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.''
:Probably because it was released in the US first.--[[User:CyberGhostface|CyberGhostface]] ([[User talk:CyberGhostface|talk]]) 03:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


*{{cite journal|last=Michod|first=David|journal=Inside Film|title=Cover story: The Sundance kids|number=63|date=March 2004|pages=32–35}}
== Tagline ==
**{{small|(Leigh Whannell, James Wan and Stacey Testro write about making SAW.)}}
it seems common to put the tagline on movie pages quite some way down, why is that the case?
I'm not sure it's really a part of the plot and the spoiler warning doesn't apply here either.


*{{cite journal|last=Walker|first=Sarah|journal=[[Fangoria]]|title=Heavy metal girl|issn=0164-2111|number=236|date=September 2004|page=49}}
([[User:Clemmy|clem]] 15:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC))
**{{small|(Shawnee Smith talks about her experiences making SAW.)}}


*{{cite journal|last=Osmond|first=Andrew|journal=[[Sight & Sound]]|title=Saw|issn=0037-4806|number=12|volume=14|date=December 2004|pages=62–63}}
:I picked it up from some other film articles, and it seems (to me anyway) that it's the best place to put it. It looks too disjointed when it's before the synopsis. [[User:Xezbeth|<font color="red">Xezbeth</font>]] 16:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


*{{cite journal|last=Salamoff|first=Paul J.|last2=Bond|first2=Jeff|journal=[[Cinefantastique]]|title=In Review|issn=0145-6032|number=6|volume=36|date=December 2004|pages=54–55}}
inconsistencies: (response by [[User:Droidguy1119|Droidguy1119]] 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
* how does electrocuting through the chains work? afaik for a shock the circuit has to be closed and the floor doesn't seem to be wet. | ''commentary says "better not to ask questions ;)''
* Adam wakes up soaked in the bathtub and still spends the rest of the movie in his (wet?) clothes?
* dr Gordon is awake when Adam gets off the tub, how come he didn't see/hear Jigsaw dump Adam in the tub and then lie down? (maybe they were sedated and Jigsaw electrocuted them awake?) | ''Dr. Gordon is just awake before Adam, not while the game is being setup. setup is shown in Saw III.''
* given how long the men were chained in the toilet, Adam would have probably found his key in the tub, therefore the ending of the film makes very little sense | ''key is indeed washed down. commentary for Saw III says a deleted scene for that film, the third film, was Jigsaw telling Amanda to tie it to some part of the tub, so that it would not get washed down, but she ignores it.''
* also: how does Jigsaw lay on the floor the whole time acting so dead and not moving so much as a muscle to breath, all with a certified physician in the room observing him. BIG omission on the part of director Wan. | ''Jigsaw takes something to slow his heart rate (again see Saw III). It may still be a stretch, but on the other hand, I believe the movie shows us "everything" in the bathroom so I think, that while the filmmakers never offered this as an answer, it is a good one: if you woke up in a foreign bathroom with a dead guy, would you pay enough attention to the body to notice if it moved slightly? I don't think I would have the time...''


*{{cite journal|last=Gingold|first=Michael|journal=[[Fangoria]]|title=DVD dungeon|issn=0164-2111|number=241|date=2005|page=70}}
EDIT: When Adam woke up in the bathtub, in the first thirty seconds of the movie, his erratic movements caused the plug to be pulled from the tub, and subsequently, the key was washed down the drain.


*{{cite journal|last=Trbic|first=Boris|journal=Metro|title=The Low-Budget Australian Horror Film|issn=0312-2654|number=144|date=April 2005|pages=44–48}}
* Jigsaw's lair found by the cops would have contained enough evidence for them to determine Jigsaw's true identity (or at least positively confirm that he wasn't dr Gordon)
**{{small|(A discussion of Australian low-budget horror film and its place in the global commercial arena, taking as an example, the success of the Hollywood film SAW and how it resurrected the low-budget feature in the USA.)}}


*{{cite journal|last=Bond|first=Jeff|journal=[[Cinefantastique]]|title=Chopping Block|issn=0145-6032|number=8|volume=37|date=November 2005|pages=12–13}}
subtle clues about the story progressing:
**{{small|(Peter Block on producing SAW.)}}
* the dead body's tape recorder doesn't contain a tape
* Zep says "don't look at me, I can't help you" when Adam and Dr. Gordon discover the camera
* the opening credits/the key sinking down (but the key got lost, so the game could not be won anyways?) (also note connection to [[Mulholland Dr.]]'s opening credits where the solution is already given)
([[User:Clemmy|clem]] 17:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))
* no casing in the revolver when Dr. Gordon loads it. This means the 'dead man' did not shoot himself.
* when Adam and dr Gordon talk to each other, they are often shot from John's POV


*{{cite journal|last=Mitchell|first=Peter|journal=Inside Film|title=Leigh Whannell|number=83|date=December 2005|page=16}}
* Reverted back in plot details, this page has a tagegd spoiler warning already, removing the element takes away from the article for those reading it in retrospect of seeing the film. [[User:xaosflux|xaosflux]] 12:28 06-Nov-2005
**{{small|(Scripwriter Leigh Whannell comments on the box-office success of SAW, working on its sequel SAW II and new project SILENCE.)}}
* X marks the spot. John is lying on the bathroom floor with his legs and arms spread out in a way forming letter X, therefore hinting that letter X has something to do with his body.--[[User:Gusiman|Gusiman]] 22:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


== American Horror Film????? ==
Inconsistancy: If Zepp's poison was so slow-acting, wouldn't he be able to go to a hospital? >.<
How can this be an American Horror film when the principle authors are Australian (or based in Australia) and the production company is Canadian? And while Canada is in America, the American Horror link goes to the USA Cinema page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.251.20.3|64.251.20.3]] ([[User talk:64.251.20.3|talk]]) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Probably because it was released in the US first.--[[User:CyberGhostface|CyberGhostface]] ([[User talk:CyberGhostface|talk]]) 03:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, however X marks the spot where the box is hidden in the wall.
::It is an American production, because it was financed by American producers, and was made in the US. The sequels were made in Canada. [[User:MaximumMadnessStixon|MaximumMadnessStixon]] ([[User talk:MaximumMadnessStixon|talk]]) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Because Wan himself calls it an American film as it was financed by American dollars. This is now clarified in the article. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print">'''[[User:MikeAllen|<span style="color:#3FFF00;">Mike</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:MikeAllen|<span style="color:#3FFF00;">Allen</span>]]'''</span> 02:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
ON ANOTHER NOTE~
Isn't the guy how burned alive an arsonist... not a guy who fakes an illness? Or that's how I interperated it- I haven't actually checked my theory.

[[User:WhatTheFace?|WhatTheFace?]] 14:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== Copyvio ==

<strike>The copyvio only applies to the trivia part; but the policy is not clear on how to handle this. (The offending part has to be removed from the history too, after all). Old Version w/o Trivia is on temppage. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- [[User:Yoghurt|Yoghurt]] 8 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)</strike>
: Sorry, have found the specific documentation in the copyvio talk page. Removing the part is enough. -- [[User:Yoghurt|Yoghurt]] 8 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)


== RE: MERGE SUGGESTION ==

Comments regarding merging [[Saw (2003 Film)]] with this article:

* DON'T MERGE: The other article references a a differant, though related film. The characters in the other film are somewhat diferant, although the scene's are realted. Suggest putting a SEE ALSO link on this article. [[User:Xaosflux|Xaosflux]] 21:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

::As there have been NO comments, I'm removnig the tag(s). [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Xaosflux|C]]</sub> 02:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== Two Incorrect Statements in Plot Section ==

The plot area says two things that are incorrect.

First: 'Jigsaw' "abducts morally wayward people". 'Jigsaw' abducts the first victim (Razorwire) because he made a suicide attempt: I flatly reject that suicide is 'morally wayward' as that means it's wrong, suicide has many causes it can't be deemed 'wrong' as simply as that. I'm changing this.

Second: 'Jigsaw ' "does not actually kill his victims himself". That, too, is incorrect: if Zep had died of the poison it would have been "Jigsaw's" fault, the same for Amanda, the victim with the jaw breaker. Adam presumably dies in the bathroom, hence "Jigsaw" killed him. Also, according to Wikipedia: "In law, murder is the crime of a human being causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm." What "Jigsaw" does is, therefore, defined by wikipedia as murder.

: Jigsaw commits murder, but does not actually kill them himself. There is a distinction between killing and murdering. [[User:Monkeyfinger|Monkeyfinger]] 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm editting both of these now.

Wouldn't it be better to make a note saying that suicide is moraly wayward in Jigsaw's oppinion? [[User:Moberho|Moberho]] 03:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It says directly in the movie by one of the characters that he does not kill them himself; I'm putting it back in, in quotation marks.

He doesn't kidnap morally wayward people, he kidnaps people who do not value life. That's why he says things about how the victim will value life more. (See scene with Amanda, scene at end where Adam is left in the room)
[[User:WhatTheFace?|WhatTheFace?]] 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All of this is subjective, maybe a tag somewhere that notes that all of the things he does, he does because he perceives them as whatever. Nothing is morally wayward, Jigsaw just sees them as such. The people may or may not value life, Jigsaw does not know, he just perceives it as such. [[User:129.120.246.72|129.120.246.72]] 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Premium Channel ==

Does anybody know what premium channel '''''Saw''''' is on (HBO, Starz, etc.)?

Showtime

== Similar to Phone Booth??==
How is Saw similar to [[Phone Booth (film)|Phone Booth]]? [[User:Mtz206|mtz206]] 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
* Guy doing bad things is trapped by a "higher entity" and must play games to stay alive? // [[User:Gargaj|Gargaj]] 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is only a superficial and cursory similarity here. 06:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Spoiler Trivia ==

In the DVD commentary for Saw, Leigh Whannell claims that an audience member during a viewing in a theater had to be excused for vomiting. While it is unknown why or at what point, his best guess would the scene with Lawrence sawing off his foot.
:Or where Amanda takes the key out of the guy's stomach? --[[User:Mark PEA|Mark PEA]] 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The gun laying next to jigsaw is a revolver. It wouldn't eject the shell casing as it was implied.
<blockquote>"an audience member during a viewing in a theater had to be excused for vomiting"</blockquote>
<br />Well I think it's when Adam put his hand into the toilet bowl :)--[[User:Glen Benton|Glen Benton]] 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

== Plot details ==

Some plot details I found missing:
# The previous victims.
# The box with the cellphone and cigarettes + the cigarette "trick".
# The warehouse chase where Sing dies with the guy and the drills.
# Tapp being removed from Police, paying Adam to take photos of Lawrence being infidel.
If someone saw the movie it would be nice if someone could include them. // [[User:Gargaj|Gargaj]] 00:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

it has the main characters switched around leigh wannel plays doctor gordon and cary ells plays adam

Updated the plot section extensively today, Feb 5th 2007. I felt there were a lot of details not included and I wanted to fix it (including the warehouse chase, the previous victims, Tapp). If I feel less lazy might fix other two films. [[User:Droidguy1119|Droidguy1119]] 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== Unlikely things ==

also, how did jigsaw electrocute the victims if he didnt have anything in his hand but the gun, and how did he press it without either of them knowing if he was ina spread position

* His mouth?
* Perhaps he had instructed Zepp to do so.

:He could have had it hidden under his palm, and just pressed down a bit to use it when the two guys were distracted. I think the bigger stretch is that a doctor, even scared and distracted, didn't notice him breathing.[[User:Rasi2290|Rasi2290]]
* I had always taken it that Zepp had done it. Part of ''his'' rules were to ensure that Adam and Lawrence were playing correctly by ''their'' rules. He wants to survive, so he is playing correctly, regardless of how that affects the others. I have wondered whether or not Zepp knows that Tobin is alive in the middle of the room, and is therefore observing him as well. [[User:FatDaks|FatDaks]] ([[User talk:FatDaks|talk]]) 11:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC).

The point about the doctor not being able to make out whether the man in the centre was dead or not is a valid one. However, there is an explanation of sorts in the third edition of the movie, Saw III in which John (Jigsaw) is shown injecting himself with a drug to slow his heartbeat and relax his muscles, before proceeding to lie down. The scene may have been thought of and inserted into the movie because of the critisism received, or may have been thought out earlier, I'm not sure which.
[[User:Complexvanilla|Complexvanilla]] 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

== Possible Points of Inspiration ==
This film appears to take a page from [[The Abominable Dr. Phibes]]. Dr. Phibes is punishing the medical doctors he believes are responsible for his late wife's death on the operating table.

At one point a key is placed in a victim's chest for which one of said surgeons must remove it before acid dripps on the victim's face. The victim is also the son of the surgeon.

Phibes was made in 1971 and the writers and directors would have had access to this movie. [[User:Mice|mice]] 06:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Detective Tapp Dead ==

In the trivia section, it is stated that it is unclear whether Tapp is dead or alive after the events of the first movie. I would think that he'd be dead, or else if he made it out alive, he would have been able to bring other police officers to Jigsaw's place of operations. It seems senseless to say that he might still be alive.

I don't know when this above comment was made or whether anyone will see this but it has been announced that the Saw video game will have the player taking the role of Detective Tapp, between Saw I and II, so Jigsaw must have found him and fixed his bullet wound. As with every horror movie (especially a Saw movie) don't believe anyone is dead unless they show something positively fatal happen to them on screen. [[User:Droidguy1119|Droidguy1119]] ([[User talk:Droidguy1119|talk]]) 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

== "we see" ==

is anyone unconformtable with the first person voice used in the synopsis? it doesn't fit the detached, 3rd person nature of an encyclopedia.

I agree.--[[User:Mooseman153|Mooseman153]] 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

==Font==
I've looked for the font used on the saw logo and found it. it is called 'glue' but I haven't seen it anywhere where it can be downloaded for free, has anyone else and if so, where?!

==external links==
I've added a link to a detailed synopsis at moviecheat.com. This is my site, it's pure content; I've checked the rules and it shouldn't be a problem to add this link as long as it's relevant and informative. But if anyone truly has a problem, feel free to revert.[[User:Rasi2290|Rasi2290]]

== Mark Rodriguez ==

I don't think it should be merged here, as his page has already been placed into the [[List of Saw Characters]] page. [[User:JackOfHearts|JackOfHearts]] 22:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::I think it's good to have a page for each trap.. but that's just my opinion, [[User:J-Ros|J-Ros]] 21:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

==References==
This article is tagged as not listing references however there are three, and all information contained in the article can be found through the references. Is the tag still needed? [[User:Mcr29|Mcr29]] 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:You're right, I removed it. It needs to be expanded before it can "not have citations". [[User:Bignole|Bignole]] 03:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== English article is so small ==

Why English article is so small? Where is "Trivia" section? Why article in [[Fuck|f*cken]] russian wikipedia is a feutured article and english is so smal??? Can anybody improve it? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/85.25.148.242|85.25.148.242]] ([[User talk:85.25.148.242|talk]]) 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
<br />Well, you can enlarge this article if you really want to. I have personally created and translated a few articles from English into Russian. Sic: Russian audience is also there so please don't be a peasant.--[[User:Glen Benton|Glen Benton]] 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

==Deaths section unnecessary==
I think the Deaths section is unnecessary as they are already mentioned in the plot synopsis which is already overly long. A summary of the deaths in the films is overkill. [[User:Mcr29|Mcr29]] 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

== Either Gordon or Lawrence, pick one. ==

The plot continually switches between Lawrence and Gordon, which could potientially confuse readers of the page. I'm not going to make the changes (perhaps people who have had more experience with the movies could), but its continually confusing and frustrating to try to read it. [[User:Disinclination|Disinclination]] 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Word's find-and-replace function made it an easy fix. [[User:Droidguy1119|Droidguy1119]] 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

== Against a name change. ==

"Saw" is the name of the film. Unless there is some sort of official word that the film has been renamed a la [[A New Hope]] I say the current name should remain. --[[User:Lenin and McCarthy|Lenin and McCarthy]] | ([[User talk:Lenin and McCarthy|Complain here]]) 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. No reason to rename, except official renaming. [[User:Cherry|Cherry]] 09:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== Trivia spoilers ==

Why is there spoilers for the sequels in the trivia section? I have only seen the first film, so I'm kinda pissed right now. I thought it would safe to read the article because this should be only about Saw I. Those spoilers should go in the [[Saw (film series)|series]] article or somewhere but not here. --[[User:Mika1h|Mika1h]] 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

== taglines ==

Does it really add to the article to list all the taglines? Any objections to removing them? --[[User:Lenin and McCarthy|Lenin and McCarthy]] | ([[User talk:Lenin and McCarthy|Complain here]]) 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:Removing all of them, no. But I agree there are too many, we don't need a complete list. Keeping only two or three would be fine. <small>[[User talk:Cherry|talking]]</small> [[User:Cherry|Ch<noinclude><font color="aa0000">e</font></noinclude>rry]] 08:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::I dunno. No GA or FA articles include their taglines. I'll remove a few of them for now until more input on the subject is found. --[[User:Lenin and McCarthy|Lenin and McCarthy]] | ([[User talk:Lenin and McCarthy|Complain here]]) 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

== Trivia section ==


I think we can get rid of it

first off, the saw in 60 seconds easter egg is only relevant to the uncut edition, so just put it in the section about the uncut DVD

make a new section for saw soundtrack, then have a link to the soundtrack article (like in the saw 3 article), after that link, put the tidbit about the megadeath song, or just move that tidbit to the soundtrack page

the fact it was filmed in 18 days and that Tobin moved his hand slightly is completely trivial and needs to be removed from the article, its also a spoiler

probably remove the bit about it being parodied, since it isn't really that widespread in pop culture, theres only three times where it was mentioned or parodied, and it doesn't have a lot to do with saw, and it really doesn't merit a pop culture section. plus, its already been mentioned in the series section

these are all suggestions, feel free to revert if you disagree with my changes, but please actually state reasons rather than going into a revert war

== Plot Cleanup==

I cleaned up the "plot" section a little. I'm afraid I didn't make it much shorter, but I think it's clearer now. [[User:Ormaybemidgets|Ormaybemidgets]] 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:AdamSawLawrence.jpg==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]
'''[[:Image:AdamSawLawrence.jpg]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|boilerplate fair use template]], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with [[WP:FU|fair use]].

Please go to [[:Image:AdamSawLawrence.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

== corpse image ==

Why do we need the image of the corpse? It's not remarkable, and doesn't illustrate the plot significantly. I move that the picture be removed. --[[User:Simpsons fan 66|Simpsons fan]] [[User talk:Simpsons fan 66|66]] 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:The 'corpse' contributes to one of the most famous parts of the film, namely the twist ending.--[[User:CyberGhostface|CyberGhostface]] ([[User talk:CyberGhostface|talk]]) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

== Plot Ending Issues ==

There are a few things that really need to be changed:


1) <i>When Lawrence does not respond to Adam's pleas to return...</i>

As Lawrence was crawling away, Adam said something like "Are we going to be okay?" and Lawrence said yes.


2) <i>With the key lost and the hacksaw out of reach, Adam has damned himself to a slow death in the bathroom. John flicks off the lights and muses, "Game over!" before slamming the door, sealing Adam in the bathroom as he screams in despair over the credits.</i>

John says "Most people are so ungrateful to be alive, but not you. Not anymore. GAME OVER!" as he's making his way out of the room. That was the same thing he said to Amanda when she survived his game, and implies that Adam and Lawrence had survived his game as well. What happened to them after that was never clarified, but if Lawrence really does show up in Saw V or VI (rumored since the lawsuit with Cary Elwes has been settled), maybe we'll get answers then.


[[User:Treewaller|Treewaller]] ([[User talk:Treewaller|talk]]) 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:I thought the "most people" line was just a voiceover from the earlier scene with Amanda. And it doesn't imply that Adam survived his game either, because he was left there to rot.--[[User:CyberGhostface|CyberGhostface]] ([[User talk:CyberGhostface|talk]]) 04:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:It could've been a voice over, but that doesn't change the context. And John didn't kill Adam at the end, he explained the part Adam hadn't figured out (the keys) and then left because the game was over. Why Lawrence never came back for him hasn't been revealed. [[User:Treewaller|Treewaller]] ([[User talk:Treewaller|talk]]) 05:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

== Brainwashing Americans??? ==

Why does the second paragraph say "the story revolves around (brainwashing Americans)"? Why the brackets? Is this graffiti? I don't get it. [[User:FatDaks|FatDaks]] ([[User talk:FatDaks|talk]]) 11:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
:It's most likely vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll go remove it.--[[User:CyberGhostface|CyberGhostface]] ([[User talk:CyberGhostface|talk]]) 14:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

== As of January 2009, there are only FIVE films ==

Someone had written in the reception section that as of January 2009, there were "five sequels" with "a sixth film in planning" or something like that. Obviously, this is untrue, as that would imply right now (February 2009) that there are already six films with a seventh in the works.

However, anyone whose paid attention to the series knows that there are only five films out now, with a sixth in the works.

I figured it was a simple slip, so I changed it, only to have it changed back to the blatantly wrong within a few days.

To clarify, there are only ''four'' sequels so far, with a ''fifth'' sequel on the way, there are '''not''' five sequels out, as of right now. That will be true in October. For now, it needs to remain at four sequels.


==Genre==
[[User:MaximumMadnessStixon|MaximumMadnessStixon]] ([[User talk:MaximumMadnessStixon|talk]]) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm against placing the genres lead as "psychological thriller". I understand how directors and writers view their own work, but I think it should be focused on third-party sources to decide it's genres. When promoting films, filmmakers and directors sometimes do not use certain terms which can carry negative notations (horror for example). Several third party sources refer to it as a horror film:
* [[Film Threat]] "To be rivaled only by the indie thriller Open Water, “Saw” may be the best independent horror film to have come out since The Blair Witch Project." [http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/6333/ source]
* [[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]]: "'Saw' is an ingenious cut above any other horror film of modern" [http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/movies/article/Saw-is-an-ingenious-cut-above-any-other-horror-1157880.php source]
* Noted horror film expert [[Kim Newman]] in [[Empire (magazine)|Empire]] "As good an all-out, non-camp horror movie as we’ve had lately." [http://www.metacritic.com/movie/saw/critic-reviews source]
* [[San Francisco Chronicle]]: "Saw: Horror.", "Director Wan and his co-writer Whannell show a heartlessness essential to a hardcore horror film.", "
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/29/DDGRB9HIGS1.DTL source]
* [[Allrovi]] "Genre: Horror, Sadistic horror" [http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/saw-v301717 ]


I'm not against removing it as a category, but a film maker can call a film any genre they want, it doesn't necessarily make it so. If ''Saw'' is a comedy to them, it doesn't make it so. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
== plot holes? ==
:I see your point. When revamping this article I tried to make the content as correct as possible, thus going by what the writer and producer classify the film as. But I understand that's not the [[WP:V|foundation of Wikipedia]] which is why I'm not going to debate it. I've changed it to a "horror" film. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print">'''[[User:MikeAllen|<span style="color:#3FFF00;">Mike</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:MikeAllen|<span style="color:#3FFF00;">Allen</span>]]'''</span> 04:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for being understanding. When I was working on the articles for ''[[House (1977 film)|House]]'' and ''[[Eyes Without a Face]]'' a came upon the same problem. The director and star of ''Eyes'' don't like calling it a horror film and the director and writer of ''House'' thought of it as more of a fantasy. Of course, all critics and other sources predominantly say horror. Happens I guess! [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 05:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


{{Talk:Saw (film)/GA1}}
it could not be zepp electrocuting them as kramer electrocutes adam in the bathroom after adam kills zep and has a gun pointed at kramer ...also when the doctor is trying to reach the cell phone he does everything even going as far as cutting his foot off when all he needs to do is take his dress shirt off and use it like he instructed adam to use his in the beginning of the film to reach the tape recorder. im not sure where these should be noted this is my first time writing anything on wikipedia , i watched the films again last night and noticed these 2 items <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.180.159.89|76.180.159.89]] ([[User talk:76.180.159.89|talk]]) 16:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==The Cube==
Was this film influenced by The Cube series which also has a group of people trapped in a strange environment and facing unknown death traps? ([[Special:Contributions/178.236.117.122|178.236.117.122]] ([[User talk:178.236.117.122|talk]]) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC))


== plot section rewrite ==
I also noticed that Zepp was about to shoot Lawrence with his almost fully loaded gun, but for some reason, Adam didn't think about pointing the gun at the chain and shooting himself free. But oh well, it's not that big of a deal. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.18.3.142|91.18.3.142]] ([[User talk:91.18.3.142|talk]]) 03:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The [[Saw_(film)#Plot|plot]] section has many mistakes and malformed sentences. I think it's in need of a rewrite [[User:Dummies102|Dummies102]] ([[User talk:Dummies102|talk]]) 13:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
== Lead section ==


:LOL, this comment was from seven years ago, so I'm guessing it won't happen, but the plot summary is basically incoherent. There are a bunch of bad parts, but the best example is this sentence: "When Gordon's wife calls him at gunpoint warning him not to trust Adam, the latter admits that he was paid by Tapp to spy on him and showed the photos he took from the bag containing the hacksaws; revealing his knowledge of Gordon's affair with one of his medical students whom he had visited the night he was abducted and the reason he is being tested." ...What? I haven't seen the movie (why I was here reading a plot summary), so I can't fix it, but this needs work badly. [[Special:Contributions/174.86.30.121|174.86.30.121]] ([[User talk:174.86.30.121|talk]]) 05:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)MOB
Just cleaned up the lead section. Hope it's a little better than [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Saw_(film)&oldid=323280640|before], but probably needs additional work and references. [[User:MikeAllen|<span style='font-family: "Century Gothic"; color:#608341'>Mike Allen]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:MikeAllen|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/MikeAllen|contribs]]</sup></span>04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


== Sources ==
== Classification ==


I think the film should be listed as a psychological thriller. First, the creators intended it to be one. Second, many reviews believe it to be one. Ebert called it a "thriller," the AMC site that is linked in this article calls it a "psychological thriller." Third, the film arguably is a psychological thriller (though I don't think it's such a great example). The best proof of this is the scene at the end when the doctor goes a little nuts and cuts his leg off and shoots the other guy.
A good source for future use:
Anyway, it was discussed above that it shouldn't be listed as a psychological thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a horror, but I don't see how one precludes the other, especially given that the "Psychological thriller" page says, "Psychological thrillers often incorporate elements of mystery, drama, and horror, particularly psychological horror." (Perhaps it should be classified as a psychological horror? That seems the most accurate to me.) I think when it is not so clear as in this case, we shouldn't rely on our on opinions but on those of the creators and the professional reviewers, who seem to think it is a psychological thriller.
And if it is not going to be listed as one, then I don't see why it is included in the "Psychological thriller series" at the bottom of the page.--[[User:Bobjohnson111980|Bobjohnson111980]] ([[User talk:Bobjohnson111980|talk]]) 04:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
:This section is dated but just to clear this up due to some people's general misunderstanding of how film genres work - movies are often more than just one genre, hence why psychological thriller is included in the categories. Saw is partially a psychological thriller but not primarily, so it isn't in the lead. The creator of The Exorcist also didn't intend for it to be a horror film and calls it a religious drama/supernatural thriller but that doesn't make it not a horror film. ''"it was discussed above that it shouldn't be listed as a psychological thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a horror"'' why should it be listed as a thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a thriller? Ebert listed the film as "Horror, Thriller" and refers to it as BOTH a horror film and a thriller in his review. ''"professional reviewers, who seem to think it is a psychological thriller"'' the majority of professional reviewers consider Saw to be a horror film. Clearly not just a horror film but it is primarily a horror film. ''"The best proof of this is the scene at the end when the doctor goes a little nuts and cuts his leg off and shoots the other guy."'' That isn't psychological thriller, that's psychological horror. Also, the majority of the [http://www.metacritic.com/movie/saw/critic-reviews metacritic professional reviews] call it a horror film (about 6 or 7 call it horror, 3 call it thriller). --[[User:FollowTheSigns|FollowTheSigns]] ([[User talk:FollowTheSigns|talk]]) 17:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


==Move discussion in progress==
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/movies/25lidz.html —'''<span style="solid;background: #5D8AA8;font-family: Century Gothic">[[User:MikeAllen|<font color="#3FFF00">Mike</font>]] [[User talk:MikeAllen|<font color="#3FFF00">Allen</font>]]</span>''' 20:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:Saw (2003 film)#Requested move |Talk:Saw (2003 film)]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Saw (2003 film) crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:05, 23 February 2024

Good articleSaw (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed


References to use

[edit]
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Michod, David (March 2004). "Cover story: The Sundance kids". Inside Film (63): 32–35.
    • (Leigh Whannell, James Wan and Stacey Testro write about making SAW.)
  • Walker, Sarah (September 2004). "Heavy metal girl". Fangoria (236): 49. ISSN 0164-2111.
    • (Shawnee Smith talks about her experiences making SAW.)
  • Trbic, Boris (April 2005). "The Low-Budget Australian Horror Film". Metro (144): 44–48. ISSN 0312-2654.
    • (A discussion of Australian low-budget horror film and its place in the global commercial arena, taking as an example, the success of the Hollywood film SAW and how it resurrected the low-budget feature in the USA.)
  • Mitchell, Peter (December 2005). "Leigh Whannell". Inside Film (83): 16.
    • (Scripwriter Leigh Whannell comments on the box-office success of SAW, working on its sequel SAW II and new project SILENCE.)

American Horror Film?????

[edit]

How can this be an American Horror film when the principle authors are Australian (or based in Australia) and the production company is Canadian? And while Canada is in America, the American Horror link goes to the USA Cinema page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.20.3 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it was released in the US first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an American production, because it was financed by American producers, and was made in the US. The sequels were made in Canada. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wan himself calls it an American film as it was financed by American dollars. This is now clarified in the article. —Mike Allen 02:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

I'm against placing the genres lead as "psychological thriller". I understand how directors and writers view their own work, but I think it should be focused on third-party sources to decide it's genres. When promoting films, filmmakers and directors sometimes do not use certain terms which can carry negative notations (horror for example). Several third party sources refer to it as a horror film:

  • Film Threat "To be rivaled only by the indie thriller Open Water, “Saw” may be the best independent horror film to have come out since The Blair Witch Project." source
  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "'Saw' is an ingenious cut above any other horror film of modern" source
  • Noted horror film expert Kim Newman in Empire "As good an all-out, non-camp horror movie as we’ve had lately." source
  • San Francisco Chronicle: "Saw: Horror.", "Director Wan and his co-writer Whannell show a heartlessness essential to a hardcore horror film.", "
source

I'm not against removing it as a category, but a film maker can call a film any genre they want, it doesn't necessarily make it so. If Saw is a comedy to them, it doesn't make it so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. When revamping this article I tried to make the content as correct as possible, thus going by what the writer and producer classify the film as. But I understand that's not the foundation of Wikipedia which is why I'm not going to debate it. I've changed it to a "horror" film. —Mike Allen 04:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being understanding. When I was working on the articles for House and Eyes Without a Face a came upon the same problem. The director and star of Eyes don't like calling it a horror film and the director and writer of House thought of it as more of a fantasy. Of course, all critics and other sources predominantly say horror. Happens I guess! Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Saw (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • Very minor prose issue such as "The script was optioned by a producer in Sydney for year but". Assuming it is missing an a between "for" and "year" in funding section.
  • "(who soon after formed Twisted Pictures)." Soon after what? Before the film was finished or picked up?
  • Remove wikilink to 'photographer', 'shotgun', and 'poison' in plot as obvious terms.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold while prose issues are dealt with. Also won't affect it passing but maybe consider adding an image or more to the cast section just to balance it out a little aesthetically, looks a little awkward as some cast have detailed info and others do not. An image of Bell or Smith would probably look good there but either way, this won't affect it passing.
I've taken care of the issues, take a look. Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cube

[edit]

Was this film influenced by The Cube series which also has a group of people trapped in a strange environment and facing unknown death traps? (178.236.117.122 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

plot section rewrite

[edit]

The plot section has many mistakes and malformed sentences. I think it's in need of a rewrite Dummies102 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, this comment was from seven years ago, so I'm guessing it won't happen, but the plot summary is basically incoherent. There are a bunch of bad parts, but the best example is this sentence: "When Gordon's wife calls him at gunpoint warning him not to trust Adam, the latter admits that he was paid by Tapp to spy on him and showed the photos he took from the bag containing the hacksaws; revealing his knowledge of Gordon's affair with one of his medical students whom he had visited the night he was abducted and the reason he is being tested." ...What? I haven't seen the movie (why I was here reading a plot summary), so I can't fix it, but this needs work badly. 174.86.30.121 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)MOB[reply]

Classification

[edit]

I think the film should be listed as a psychological thriller. First, the creators intended it to be one. Second, many reviews believe it to be one. Ebert called it a "thriller," the AMC site that is linked in this article calls it a "psychological thriller." Third, the film arguably is a psychological thriller (though I don't think it's such a great example). The best proof of this is the scene at the end when the doctor goes a little nuts and cuts his leg off and shoots the other guy. Anyway, it was discussed above that it shouldn't be listed as a psychological thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a horror, but I don't see how one precludes the other, especially given that the "Psychological thriller" page says, "Psychological thrillers often incorporate elements of mystery, drama, and horror, particularly psychological horror." (Perhaps it should be classified as a psychological horror? That seems the most accurate to me.) I think when it is not so clear as in this case, we shouldn't rely on our on opinions but on those of the creators and the professional reviewers, who seem to think it is a psychological thriller. And if it is not going to be listed as one, then I don't see why it is included in the "Psychological thriller series" at the bottom of the page.--Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is dated but just to clear this up due to some people's general misunderstanding of how film genres work - movies are often more than just one genre, hence why psychological thriller is included in the categories. Saw is partially a psychological thriller but not primarily, so it isn't in the lead. The creator of The Exorcist also didn't intend for it to be a horror film and calls it a religious drama/supernatural thriller but that doesn't make it not a horror film. "it was discussed above that it shouldn't be listed as a psychological thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a horror" why should it be listed as a thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a thriller? Ebert listed the film as "Horror, Thriller" and refers to it as BOTH a horror film and a thriller in his review. "professional reviewers, who seem to think it is a psychological thriller" the majority of professional reviewers consider Saw to be a horror film. Clearly not just a horror film but it is primarily a horror film. "The best proof of this is the scene at the end when the doctor goes a little nuts and cuts his leg off and shoots the other guy." That isn't psychological thriller, that's psychological horror. Also, the majority of the metacritic professional reviews call it a horror film (about 6 or 7 call it horror, 3 call it thriller). --FollowTheSigns (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Saw (2003 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saw_(film)&oldid=1209739256"