Talk:Saw V

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saw V article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Film: Canadian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror: Saw Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Saw task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

Reception[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks this section is POV? I mean, I like Saw as much as the next guy, but V had by far the lowest critical consensus for the series to date, and all it mentions are positive reviews. If someone could attempt to balance it out by adding some of the negative reviews, that'd be great. If not, I'll try doing some tomorrow.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "While mostly negative, there were some positive reviews, and the movie fared generally better in terms of critical response than its predecessor." That's just ridiculous. Check Saw I, II, III, IV and V in rottentomatoes. It's a steady decline (46%-36%-26%-18%-13%). Saw V did fare better among top critics than Saw IV, but that's because of one single review, and it was a 10% improvement over 0%. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, fix it. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier..."If someone could attempt to balance it out by adding some of the negative reviews, that'd be great. If not, I'll try doing some tomorrow." I'm fairly busy, so I thought pointing out to someone who would have more time to fix the section would be better. But if no one else is able to do this, I'll try.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was really addressing that to the IP. Darrenhusted (talk)

Oh, sorry then.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I should have been clearer. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some negative reviews to the section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should revise the gross amount cuz its written 35.5 mil whereas its 45.8 as of now.(sry didnt know where to write this im kinda new)--User:13Dvivid13 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

spoiler[edit]

The "plot" section is a total recounting and spoiler of the film. It should have a warning prior. "Plot" implies the gist of the story, not a total spoiler. 156.111.160.114 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you are the most wrong person on earth. Read WP:SPOILER. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you should read Wikipedia:Civility, which is a policy. If someone thinks "plot" implies the gist of a story, not the entire story, who are you to tell them different? That anonymous editor can add a spoiler warning if they want (although I'm 100% certain it will be removed). --Pixelface (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Saws on wiki are spoiled. That's not new. On the french wiki we try not to spoil it. Nico92400 (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Editing[edit]

The discussing of the entire plot occurring in the movie, particularly the second half of the plot, is a gigantic edit fuck fest. People are shorting it, leaving out valuable info, sometimes adding redundant terms etc. Something needs to be done here. Comparing the current plot info on the Saw V article with every other movie the whole thing is slack written, and the currently written ending in the article at this point, which doesn't give a specific reason for Strahm not being able to escape the room, is like pinpointing the movie for being generally illogical and badly written in terms of sense. The plot isn't written according to the timeline either, instead it's combining it all in different sections, and it also leaves out the infamous plot twists of the Saw movies, which there even were two of in this movie. Carbo45 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you (or anyone) know how to fix it, then go ahead. I've only seen it once and I don't plan on seeing it anytime soon so I wouldn't be the best one to edit it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something which, I did. Mostly adding the info regarding the ending plot twist, which then later on got replaced. I'll try adding it again tomorrow, the point is that it never seems to stay solid, which is why things at this point seems a lot messier compared to other sections of the article. Carbo45 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it says when you edit: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. The ending is fine, there is no twist, Strahm gets killed, Erickson finds Brit, Hoffman is in a box. The plot is clear in these aspects. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carbo45, people are shorting it and it kills the significance of certain matters. I made an edit to the part about the five working together that was very significant and someone removed it stating that it was 'excessive'. It's not excessive, it explains and justifies why it is said that they were supposed to work together to get to the last game. It's called backing up the statement. How is that excessive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by General DarkBlood (talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my removal - excessively detailed (simply stating the team requirement is sufficient), turned the already long paragraph into a nightmarish wall o' text, hard to read due to sentence readability/text flow issues. Millahnna (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I stand by my inclusion. Simply stating the team requirement is not sufficient - it leaves those that take a deeper interest in the movie asking 'How?'. Hence the explanation. If you find the paragraph too long (We've all seen MUCH longer paragraphs under the 'plot' of movies on Wikipedia) then feel free to breeze over it - give the readers an option to skip that part of the reading if they wish. Don't decide for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General DarkBlood (talk • contribs) 09:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw VI[edit]

since factual details are becoming available, isn't it time to make a Saw VI article yet? 68.185.167.117 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFF, we shouldn't create an article until it has been confirmed by confirmed by reliable sources that the film has commenced principal photography Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been announced. Tobin Bell and Costas are both signed on. Plus there is a clip on Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.76.236 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a clip on youtube ? man i don t think so. But I agree , Saw 6 page should already have been created. However Saw 5 page has been created on 6 december 2007 Nico92400 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although Youtube is anything but reliable. If you could show a link to the video you found I could see if I can validate it. Regardless, Saw VI has began filming according to: Lionsgate, Bloody-Disgusting, Movie Moron, and many other sites. Therefore, WP:NFF does not apply and the Saw VI article should be made immediately. I have a well written and cited draft I will put on tonight. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIv2jl0fUqA <---is this authentic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceT13TSOSIM (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Some moron spliced together footage of an old Cary Elwes film with Saw music and scenes from the first film. Nothing more.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]