Talk:Saw (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Michod, David (2004). "Cover story: The Sundance kids". Inside Film (63): 32–35. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • (Leigh Whannell, James Wan and Stacey Testro write about making SAW.)

• Walker, Sarah (2004). "Heavy metal girl". Fangoria (236): 49. ISSN 0164-2111. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • (Shawnee Smith talks about her experiences making SAW.)

• {{cite journal|last=Walker|first=Sarah|journal=Fangoria|title=Saw cuts deep|issn=0164-2111|number=236|month=September|year=2004|pages=46–51}
  • (James Wan and Leigh Whannell talk about making SAW.)

• Osmond, Andrew (2004). "Saw". Sight & Sound. 14 (12): 62–63. ISSN 0037-4806. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Salamoff, Paul J.; Bond, Jeff (2004). "In Review". Cinefantastique. 36 (6): 54–55. ISSN 0145-6032. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Gingold, Michael (2005). "DVD dungeon". Fangoria (241): 70. ISSN 0164-2111. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Trbic, Boris (2005). "The Low-Budget Australian Horror Film". Metro (144): 44–48. ISSN 0312-2654. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • (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.)

• Bond, Jeff (2005). "Chopping Block". Cinefantastique. 37 (8): 12–13. ISSN 0145-6032. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • (Peter Block on producing SAW.)

• Mitchell, Peter (2005). "Leigh Whannell". Inside Film (83): 16. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • (Scripwriter Leigh Whannell comments on the box-office success of SAW, working on its sequel SAW II and new project SILENCE.)

American Horror Film?????

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)

Probably because it was released in the US first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Genre

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 

• Allrovi "Genre: Horror, Sadistic horror" [1]

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)

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)

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)

GA Review

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)

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)