Talk:Saw (franchise)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Navigation

I just changed the navigation box! I only changed the colors so it can be changed back pretty easy if you all don't like it, but I think you will.--Fugabutacus 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw (MySpace Edition)

What about an article about the MySpace edition of Saw? Of course the numbers signify the date of the third movie release, but hey, doesn't it at least deserve some kind of mention?--216.249.145.229 15:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is probably not that significant to mention here, and even if it is then maybee in the Saw III article itself. But it would be good as an external link. Maybee an External Links section is needed here to include this among other links. Jarryd Moore

Saw IV

If and when Saw IV were to be made (And apparently it is...) wouldn't it come out on the 26th of October next year (Friday) instead of the 25th (Thursday)? JackOfHearts 09:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

{{spoilers}} The reference for the statement "Also, Lions Gate has announced that Saw IV, a fourth movie, will be made, but no official information (cast, crew, directors) has been released, except that Tobin Bell will reprise his role as Jigsaw.[1]" makes no mention whatsoever to Tobin Bell reprising the role. Given this and, well, the fact that Jigsaw dies in Saw III, shouldn't such statement be removed (or else, better cited)? —Rotring 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC) {{endspoilers}}

OK, I added a reference to the ComingSoon.net Film Database, where Saw IV has the indication of starring Tobin Bell (although a news item explicitly stating this would be a better one). —Rotring 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is all possible for Jigsaw to return. Jigsaw also "died" at the end of Saw II. He was shot several times, inguries he has no sign of in Saw III. Not to mention numerous other horror characters have "died" and returned, Like Micheal Myers or Freddy Krueger. This also doesnt rule out, flashbacks, pre-recorded messages Jigsaw might have left, or even a prequel movie. In otherwords, in all horror evil has a way of surviving, that is, if it keeps making money. But, since the page only says Bell will be returning, and may or may not be reprising the role of Jigsaw we can't really speculate. Still, we shouldn't completely rule it out. (Animedude 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Characters

Seeing the rise in the number of character pages, I would like to suggest that a minor characters page (i.e. List of Characters in the Saw Films) be made. Any objections or suggestions? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been made: List of Saw Characters. JackOfHearts 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thematic discrepancy

Perhaps the article should mention the fact that Zep does not fit with Jigsaw's rationale for choosing his victims. He supposedly chooses victims who take their lives for granted, but Zep goes out of his way to point out Dr. Gordon's "clinical" treatment of Kramer (Jigsaw), and the fact that Gordon knows nothing of the man as a person. The fact that he is an orderly who does this in front of a resident doctor who is lecturing interns and is possibly jeopardizing his job by doing so is important. Maybe this should be put in a "Criticism of the Series" section or something, but it does not fit with Jigsaw's supposed rationale of choosing victims who "take their lives for granted." If nothing else this is a thematic discrepancy on the part of the writers and/or director, and should be pointed out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.191.24.143 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

This 'criticism' is your opinion and yours alone, and pretty much counts as original research.--CyberGhostface 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because this major discrepancy is incredibly important and will surely headline all the major news outlets. Now, go back to playing Halo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.101.71 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Saw logo

I changed the article picture from the Saw III promotional poster to the Saw "logo" used in at least 3 of the movie posters and the comic cover. It's just "saW" written in a font called "glue" or something. Opinions/Objections? Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Themes

Unless anyone has a legit reason why it should stay, I'm going to be removing the themes. A lot of its speculation and coincidences. For example, the usage of fires and people getting their throat cuts in all three films doesn't mean that they're necessarily ongoing themes.--CyberGhostface 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Pattern?

I was wondering if it should be noted in the 'Media' section, where the Saw films are becoming a Halloween tradition for fans, that with each latest film it appears to be released one day prior to that of last years. I'm sure that the pattern will eventually end considering if the studio wants to remain close to October 31st, but I was just wondering if that should be pointed out at least for what seems to be occuring thus far with the films. Thanks. -- Godzilla 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The films are released the Friday before Halloween. The pattern is caused by the fact that each year, a date will fall one day later in the week than it did in the previous year. For example, Halloween was Tuesday last year, and so will be a Wednesday this year. Thus, this pattern is simply that in reverse....the Friday before is simply one day earlier each year.

BTW, the pattern changes in leap years, as each date is now 2 days later after leap day. Thus, Halloween 2008 will be on Friday. I'm guessing that Saw V is targeted for that release date. Joshcating 11:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Video Games

On the official Saw website they said that there are video games coming out based on the movies. Can someone put it on here or something?

"Series plot" Request

Hi, I was wondering whether the person who wrote the current "Series plot" for the article, could be the one who writes the addition of Saw IV to keep it all the same (I'm assuming one person wrote the whole section because it seems to follow the same style) — Movie Junkie 12:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, and I'll be sure to update it when IV comes out. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 10:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent... I just have this thing about everything being in the same style; I'm a bit of a perfectionist :D — Movie Junkie 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the "series plot", shouldn't it be in chronological order? just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.148.60 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Saw IV Poster

Hi, I wondered whether the poster should be there at the moment. I know its part of the series, but there's currently no plot about the movie in the section. Its just a thought... — Movie Junkie 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

There is no references and really the section has no scope. Its all a bit "did it really happen" etc etc... wot do people think on the matter? — MovieJunkie ^Talk! 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saw-poster-1.jpg

Image:Saw-poster-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the 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 fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saw Logo.JPG

Image:Saw Logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the 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 fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saw-2-poster-0.jpg

Image:Saw-2-poster-0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the 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 fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saw-3-poster-1.jpg

Image:Saw-3-poster-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the 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 fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:337524 8c07ecbe-475e-4a05-8b0b-910d3c2e392f prod.jpg

Image:337524 8c07ecbe-475e-4a05-8b0b-910d3c2e392f prod.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the 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 fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Okay this article has an apparent contradiction ...The current Saw trilogy is one of very few film series where each new film has earned more than its predecessor... is in the lead yet later ...Saw II currently holds the record for highest total gross for the "Horror - Torture" genre according to Box Office Mojo. with Saw III and Saw following in 3rd and 4th...

So if each film earned more than the previous how could saw III be behind saw II in highest total gross? --Shimonnyman 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Saw II made more money than Saw III domestically, but Saw III performed better internationally and ended up with a higher worldwide gross. The worldwide box office gross is being used in the opening paragraph and the domestic gross in the second statement. This is an example of how cherry picking statistics gives a skewed perspective. While both are correct, the article is obviously misleading by using one type of measure to list one achievement and a different type to list another without differentiating between the two.

Adding a 'Reception' section

Would it be fine for me to do so? It'll look something like this: Spider-Man film series#Reception

I'd primarily do the table work, but it'll allow comparison on how the film series has grown, both financially and by critically reception. If people are cool with it, I'll put it up (I've already prepared it). -- Harish - 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea... Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:337524 8c07ecbe-475e-4a05-8b0b-910d3c2e392f prod.jpg

Image:337524 8c07ecbe-475e-4a05-8b0b-910d3c2e392f prod.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the 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 fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

News on the Video Games?

Any thing new at all? I've been thinking, maybe once we get enough info we should add Video Games to the other category in the toolbar or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.71.178 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See saw in 60

The 1st 2(and possibly the 3rd)all have the ((Easter egg)) See saw in 60 take 1 and take 2,that could fill an artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello,its not me (talk • contribs) 06:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning categories.

Concerning the categories that go with the entire franchise, would anyone be opposed (or for that matter, would anyone agree) to adding the series, films, ETC., into the category of Torture? It just seems appropriate. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 07:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New Saw IV DVD?

Stated in the article "Each release made to date was released in theaters in consecutive years on the Friday before Halloween and released in an uncut version on DVD the following October." Has there been a release date on the October Saw IV DVD release yet? Is it too soon or have they decided not to release another version of it? If so wouldn't the statement be wrong? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just my two cents...maybe it's because there's no extra footage to be shown? The first Saw IV DVD was Bousman's "Director's Cut" so I don't know what else could be shown. Although it's a bit weird that there's no double-dip this year.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well they have released a SE and EXTREME(spinning saw) version for the UK and not in the US yet and that Saw V is coming up in the next few weeks they still might release one but haven't released info yet. But the on the other hand I can agree with you. It was a little weird seeing when they first released the Saw IV Directors Cut right away. --67.9.197.110 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

O.o Dont tell me u haven't seen the UK Saw IV Extreme Edition Packaging. Needs to be mentioned in the Saw IV article.

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 06:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trap section

What happened to the trap section? It suddenly disappeared. Rollinman (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the article? It got deleted. Go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_traps_in_the_Saw_film_series_(2nd_nomination) for the gory details. I'm thinking of running it by deletion review tomorrow or sometime later this week, so if you think it should stay, your help would be appreciated.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did this section get deleted. It doesn't matter if it's gory thats how the films are. This section needs to be brought back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.164.15 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

=

unsigned noob

==

Goddammit why did you delete the traps section. Its not like the internets is going to run out of memory. /facepalm You wikipedians do a good job here but deleting interesting stuff sucks. ==================/noob

Saw traps is up at Deletion Review

If you think the article for the Saw traps should return, I put it on deletion review.

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_14#List_of_traps_in_the_Saw_film_series--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was delete, I still don't see why, seeing as the trap page connects the movies together, and describes the traps itself for the previous movies instead of being served as a strict spoiler purpose for the next movie. Rollinman (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was the list of traps deleted!?! I just came here for the first time today and would have liked to read what each did.

If it has been deleted, why not have a link to where you can read about them. Who should decide that something should be deleted from the internet forever? It's crazy. If it was written, why was it just not moved off page with a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.142.62 (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I saved a copy on my user page here if you still want to read it. But I don't see the article returning at any point in the near future.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

///unsigned noob - thanks Ghostface :D /// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.21.252 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw: The ride

I added a little bit of info about this ride, but it was removed again. Any ideas why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixshelton (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some repeated adding/removing of information about Saw: The Ride. Anyone want to have a chat about where and how it should be included, if at all? There is a related article called 'SAW: The Ride' so nothing much needs to be said on here, cos we can just link to that. What does everybody think? Felixshelton (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if the whole thing is notable. I'll check out the main ride article and possibly get some sources from there.... if there are any. But, I'l look it over, and other probably will too. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be no sources in that article. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, you're right, there aren't any. I'll try and sort that out first, and then lets resume this discussion. Felixshelton (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hoffman is left safely inside a box of glass shards to continue Jigsaws legacy"

I haven't seen the film, but wonder if this is a mistake. How "safe" can you be in a box of glass shards???

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.170.129 (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Safe in that it prevented him from being squished like a pancake by the walls like poor Strahm.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Strahm is actually the one in the box, hoffman pushes him in not knowing that the walls would crush him, leaving strahm to live as a convict due to the fact that hoffman set him up as jigsaws accomplice

Sareul (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to "bash" anyone, but honestly??? Wow. Strahm pushes Hoffman into the relative safety of the glass box full of shards and Strahm is crushed. So, the glass box is really a safety point and Strahm dies, not Hoffman. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of the Pig mask article with this article

I merged the pig mask article into the Jigsaw Killer article instead. I don't think the pig mask information belongs on this Saw (film series) page. Discuss. Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I took a look, and the sole contributor was an IP who admitted a couple of times to seriously disliking the films. Many of the sources barely back up the facts. For example he writes "One of the major criticisms of the Saw films is that they represent an unashamed celebration of brutal sadism" as if it's undisputed fac it: it links to a NYMag article which is basically about the genre in itself and only makes a brief reference to Saw. There's more emphasis on The Devil's Rejects and Hostel. Pretty much all the other links are similar in nature, and he even includes a blog from Best Week Ever (hardly a reliable source).--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I actually do agree. Would you mind, if, in several months, I possibly tried to re-write the section, as, I have noted, I am writing my senior paper on the subject, so I would obviously have to have an unbiased opinion. I know that's a little off topic, but I thought if it could be written better, it might be noteworthy. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the opinion of the editor, that shouldn't be in the article. The editor should find sources stating their opinions and quote them then cite them. If the editor so chooses only to include bias or unvaried reviews, that is wrong but cannot necessarily be stopped. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Appearances

Should appearances count if the appearance is in archive footage from previous installments (as with Amanda in IV and V, or Lynn in IV and V)? Because if so, then Gordon should be on Saw III as well as he was in the background during the bathroom scene, or Adam as his corpse was on display in II.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think they should be counted, but only if listed in the closing credits of the film. But that's just my opinion. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 21:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They should count if they are listed in official credits. My opinion and your opinion and any other user's opinion is irrelevant. What Lionsgate have stated is what matters. And that is indicated by the official credits of the film. Yeldarb68 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Name change.

In there any opinion on renaming this page "Saw (franchise)"? I have been thinking about this for a little while, and I think, since there is more than just "films" (comic book, video game, ride, and possibly more) it should be renamed to franchise, as is done in the A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) page, the Friday the 13th (franchise) page, and the Halloween (franchise) page. Now, granted, these "franchises" have more to offer than the Saw series, but it seems to me that this page should follow the same fashion. Just my opinion. Note: This section has been included in both the Saw film series talk page and the WikiProject Saw talk page. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 03:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be more appropriate. Yeldarb68 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have any problems with this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one else comes along and says otherwise, I'll change it in 24 hours. Anyone object? --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one?

Am I the only one who thinks this movie might be really dangerous if some psychopath wants to recreate what's on the screen? I mean sure, you can say the same thing about all other forms of violence on TV, movies, video games, etc... It makes me feel uneasy to know some people out there would think about using the movie as a guide to perpetrate their crimes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.154.112 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's been five movies out and no (major) incidents yet. Considering how people were copying Scream as soon as it came out, I'm not losing much sleep over any Jigsaw wannabes.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a general discussion board. If you don't have something to say directly relevant to the way the article should be written, don't write anything at all. Yeldarb68 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

list of traps

Why is there not a list of all the Jigsaw traps? They could be catagorized by "creator" or by time. That seems encylopedic to me.

There used to be, but it was deleted. Several other editors are working on a subpage, for more info check WP:SAW. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 01:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Performance Table - Budget Column

III and IV share a single cell that says $10m. Looking at the references, it's not clear what this is supposed to represent. The reference for Saw IV states that the production budget is "N/A"... does this mean that III and IV shared a single production budget of $10m, that each film had it's own separate $10m budget (not represented in the reference given, but apparent in the "totals" row), or that the budget is unknown? I feel this could be clarified in the table, if anyone knows the answer.

My edits

Since my edits were rudely blanket reverted, I might explain them bit by bit:

This one should be easy: "domestic" is US-centric. Putting "U.S." in the box makes it clear where it earned that money.
"The franchise revolves around the fictional character of John Kramer, also called the "Jigsaw Killer", introduced in Saw (2004), who rather than murder his victims, creates elaborate tests, or "games", and with the players being the ultimate decision maker of if they survive or not."
I don't mind calling Kramer a "fictional character" though I think it superfluous. However, it is unacceptable to claim that he doesnot murder his victims. If he puts some skullcrushing contraption with a time lock on somebody's head he is just as actively the killer as if he simply shot them. The above wording also makes it seems as the victims can easily, simply by choice get out when in fact they have to go through gruelling devices often close to impossible.
It makes no sense to start with Hoffman in the overview - and my reverter could have at least have the courtesy to not revert my "clarifyme" tag placed immediately after the hitherto unknown name pops out of nowhere. IMHO placing Hoffman later, where he also belongs regarding the film sequence, makes more sense.
As for the cast list - do these characters and their actors appear in these movies or not? Why is it important to note supposed "cameos" (do you mean "uncredited" by that?)? It is certainly unnecessary to note that empty boxes denote that a character does not appear. If they appeared, they'd be listed. And even if we needed these instructions, they shouldn't be in a separate box.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with domestic to US, my apologizes.
And the wording was slightly copied from such franchise articles as Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street. And obviously his victims can escape, as the character of Amanda did. The opening paragraphs are there to summarize the articles, which this does, "they can escape, if they choose". If readers want to know, they can read further into the article, where this is explained in greater detail.
And I am partly wrong about the overview section, I apologize for that also.
Also, the cast list, as I stated on your talk page, is copied from a featured article, as stated by this edit summary. And, as far as I know, FA's are what they are, because they're the best, therefore we should try to make all pages like them. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 23:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good that we agree on "domestic".
"And obviously his victims can escape, as the character of Amanda did."
which is precisely not the point. The point is that Jigsaw orchestrates the death of a row of people for his special motives - and some he does kill. Had Amanda not escaped, she would have been killed by him. The first victim in Saw II is killed by him. And no, they cannot simply escape "if they choose" - escaping usually involves either becoming murderers themselves or mutilating themselves or others. Our article need not say that Jigsaw is a evil psychopath (and undoubtedly he is) but it also should not hide the fact that the is a killer. And the opening should state that accurately.
Good that we agree about the overview too.
As for the cast list, I still don't understand the reasoning. Can you give an actual reasoning for special treatment of "cameo", for grey box explanation (when empty boxes are self-explanatory) or for placing the notes in a separate box. If you can't, the Superman article practice has not justification either. I am awaiting your response. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I was eating. Ha ha. But in the two instances we've been discussing. John is not a murderer. Plain and simple, he does not kill. The characters kill themselves, they have a choice, often a 'disgusting' choice, such as you said "becoming murderers themselves or mutilating themselves or others", but it is a choice if they want to live.

Also, in the instance of Shawnee Smith, she was in Saw IV and Saw V, but, especially for V, her character appeared in the movie, but she was never present while filming took place, thus, she has a "cameo". Understandable? --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Plain and simple, John is a murderer. It is a sick world in which this is not clear to everyone.

Cameo? No, not understandable! If you intend to say "in flashbacks", let's say so.

Str1977 ^(talk) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He is not a murderer. He does not kill. Killing is, as you said, pointing a gun and shooting, or stabbing with a knife. If there is a way that you are able to escape and you don't take it, that is not his fault. And it's not a "flashback". Have you ever even seen these films? And, to summarize, he is not a murderer, he lets victims choose. And they're not "flashbacks", it's a cameo. Please, you and I are obviously not going to settle this, I'm taking to it WP:THIRD --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But he is a murderer. He does kill. Placing someone in a contraption that will kill him is just as much killing that someone as shooting him is. According to your logic, you could say shooting is merely pulling trigger and if it's not immediately fatal, the shot person can always go and see a doctor.

"If there is a way that you are able to escape and you don't take it, that is not his fault." That is a really revolting statement by you. Who put them there in the first place? "... he lets victims choose." Even worse. How kind that man must be - only he doesn't he thinks himself so great that he choses his victims and then comes with his "I wanna play a game" He is a sick freak that should play with his ball and not with people. What you write is exactly what I meant by apologetics

Yes, I have seen some (though not all).

It is not a cameo. A cameo is a short, usually uncredited appearance in a minor role (or no role at all). The recurring characters are never minor and whether they are uncredited you can loo up. I doubt it. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 'cameo' bit--example: Amanda did not appear in IV or V. She died in three and no new footage was filmed with her. However, she is credited in that previous footage was used for flashbacks. Same with Eric and Jeff in Saw V. As it was before, it seemed to me to be overtly simplistic and maybe unintentionally misleading to simply indicate that Amanda had appeared in all five films, when she had really only appeared in the first three. Regarding the whole "Is he a murderer or not" that's going on here--Wikipedia really isn't the place for such debates. But I modified the sentence to say "who rather than murder his victims outright".--CyberGhostface (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I just checked the plot summary, which reads "Few of John's victims are able to survive his brutal tests, which are often ironically symbolic representations of the problems in the victim's life and require them to undergo severe physical or psychological torture to escape." That's hardly slanting the situation in his favor.--CyberGhostface (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So I take it that these are not "cameos" but "flashbacks".
It was never my intention to have such a debate (but when other editors are saying revolting things, one cannot remain silent on this). But the article (and that means all of its parts) should not be slanted in Jigsaw's favour. The intro currently is.
JpGrB claimed that he agreed with two points, making parts of his reverting unjustified, but did nothing to restore these two points. Hence, I will now have to restore them myself - but as I told him, I will have to restore other points as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could say they're flashbacks, but where does that leave the Jigsaw backstory in IV and V? Those would be considered 'flashbacks' as well. And some of them aren't flashbacks, we're seeing the scene in present time from a different perspective (as with Amanda in Saw IV). And I really don't see what's so 'revolting' about the original intro either, but I've modified that as well so hopefully it's more NPOV but less morally offensive to you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So not all are flashbacks - but none are cameos.

I used the word "revolting" not in reference to the intro but to JpGrB's unashamed apologizing for Jigsaw. The old intro merely leans slightly into that direction.

Now, I can appreciate the value of the word "outright" (as in immediately), as the Jigsaw killer does not immediately kill them but rather let's that be the result of a long, proctracted process. However, I must insist on the fact that he traps his victims in these situations. I therefore suggest:

"... who rather than kill his victims outright, traps them in situations, which he calls "tests" or "games", in order to to test their wills to live via physical or psychological torture."

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can compromise with that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Case closed then unless anyone else objects. Bye, Str1977 ^(talk) 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it looks good now. And thank you for calling me and my comments "revolting". --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. My words were fitting at the time and they still are. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot section should be trimmed/changed

It's a bit sloppy/overwieldy as it is. I'd be willing to help. Obviously it's going to be a bit long as it's chronicling five films, but some detail is unnecessary. If the reader wants greater detail they can look at other articles. We should also write from the POV of someone who hasn't seen the films. Here's an example.

Flashbacks from Saw V depict Hoffman's roots with John, which occurred before the first film. It all starts with a man named Seth in a pendulum trap. He is told that he must crush his hands, which he used to murder, to stop a pendulum from slicing him in half. He crushes his hands, but is sliced anyway. Before he dies, he sees an eye watching him from the wall. Later in Saw V it is revealed that this trap occurred before the first movie, and the observer was Hoffman, who wanted revenge on Seth for murdering his sister.

First off, we don't need to go into detail about the trap, the eye etc. We should basically say that "Hoffman was a detective whose sister was murdered in a fight with her boyfriend, Seth. Enraged, he made a trap emulating Jigsaw's to mislead the police, and rigged it so that Seth would die no matter what. Because of this, Jigsaw sought him out..."--CyberGhostface (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Catagorizing Jigsaw

I feel ashamed to be so petty, but the issue has come up on how to classify John/Jigsaw as a killer or not. John is not a killer because every one of his victims are able to live if they so choose. I am not speaking of Hoffman's or Amanda's victims, but John's personally. Like when in Saw II Eric Matthews said something like "Pulling a gun and forcing them to pull the trigger is murder", that is actually not the case. You may observe that traps like Amanda's head trap and Saw II's opening Venus fly trap had to be activated by pulling a pin. Jigsaw didn't make them pull the pin, they could have simply sat there. That's like jumping in front of a car and blaming it on the driver (stupid analogy i know, sorry). This means John is NOT a killer. Again, sorry for being so petty but the question wouldn't go away. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, he's not a murderer in the sense that Freddy or Jason is, but he's still responsible for their deaths. If I put someone in a room full of a razors, and to get out they have to gouge out their eyes in half a minute to escape, and they end up dying, I'm responsible even if I deliberately left them a way out. It's not the same as jumping in front of a car, unless the driver of said car rigged a device that would deliberately throw you in harm's way.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)