Talk:Saw IV

Threshold For Article Recreation

Lionsgate announced this morning that after the opening box office weekend success of Saw III, that Saw IV will go into production and will most likely be schedueled for a Halloween 2007 release date, following a similar release date pattern to the previous Saw films.

Saw 4 will dig deeper into Jigsaw's insight on life and death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.99.215 (talk • contribs)

Source? JDoorjam Talk 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

www.bloody-disgusting.com confirmed this statement earlier today, along with joblo and ign.com.

(edit conflict)Nevermind, found my own: here's the AP saying Lionsgate is planning a fourth installment. But there isn't even an IMDb stub. I fully expect this topic will be article-worthy very very soon, but for now it's just a gleam in Lionsgate's eye. Articles should not be written for movies that are simply speculated about, no matter how likely we believe their imminent production to be. On the other hand, once this gets legs, BAM! the article will be good to go. (Btw, please sign your posts with four tildes, thusly: ~~~~ .) JDoorjam Talk 02:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw on CNN.com on October 29 ‘Lionsgate plans to have "Saw IV" in theaters over Halloween weekend next year.’ That there will be a fourth installment. I personally believe that the deletion of this page in the first place was premature. Although the movie was still under speculation, there was a huge amount of unofficial talk that Lionsgate was not denying. Just thought I would put in my two cents. --Dleav 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the creation of the page was premature, by your own admission. If you believe we should have articles about things "under speculation" based on "unofficial talk" then you do not have a full understanding of Wikipedia standards. Fan-1967 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lionsgate said that Saw IV is being made. This is almost more detail than Star Trek XI. --myselfalso 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Paramount has announced a production team, and has stated the movie is in production. There are writers and a director. By contrast, Lion's Gate has basically said "We'll make another one" with no further information of any sort. How is that "almost more detail"? Fan-1967 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek XI also has an IMDb entry, and even has a promo poster. These are all excellent metrics for when Saw IV should have an article. When the film has confirmed writers, a director, producers, an IMDb entry, and Gene Roddenberry has a credit for character development (ok, I'm flexible on this one), or at least a compelling mix of these elements, preferably with a confirmed cast, then that should be enough. But Fan-1967 is right: "We'll make another one" is insufficient. JDoorjam Talk 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

IMDB entry? What does an IMDB entry have to do with anything? Without commenting on the general topic at hand, I will say that IMDB entries have nothing to do with whether a film has been, will be, was, or even may be made because the IMDB is user edited and not a reputable source by any definition of the word. Mad Jack 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

True. Often IMDB will carry really tenuous projects that are way too unverifiable to meet Wikipedia standards. This one is so vaporous that it doesn't even meet IMDB's standards, such as they are. If it's in IMDB, it may or may not happen. If it's not even there yet, it hasn't gotten past the discussion stage yet. Fan-1967 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice I listed it as one among several criteria. I would say we do give IMDb some repute, as we have this thing lying around and in wide use: {{imdb}}. But I think the three of us are basically groping the elephant here, and are saying the same thing: Saw IV needs more. JDoorjam Talk 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually IMDB is actually listing it now as in production. --Zoiks 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

IMDB is also listing it now as starring Jessica Alba (yeah, right) and Goran Vischnic (however you spell his name). I think the nice people at the IMDB controls need to just press the self-destruct button and put themselves out of their misery. Mad Jack 00:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Fascinating. That's the same alleged cast as "The Eye" ([1]) another film that has been making the rounds of the rumor mills. I think maybe IMDB's been punked. Fan-1967 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you surprised? The IMDB isn't that bad when it comes to most films that have already been made and released. But when it comes to upcoming movies, it's game over in terms of even mild reliability. Mad Jack 01:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the elitism here is astounding. It's like I'm drowning in a festering pool of Tom Cruise-esque people. Also, here's my signature.136.176.84.103 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Elitism is bad, indeed. Vegetaman 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it enough that the movie has been announced by Lionsgate that it will be released next fall. We now know it exists and the date of release. I will admit that there is nothing else confirmed, but I think it still merits it's own page.--Dleav 14:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't merit a page, because there wouldn't be enough information to actually support itself. Bignole 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Create Article

When is this article available to create as there appears to be numerous sources cropping up stating the following Saw 4 and 5 releases.

• Stunning News! "Saw 4" Next October!
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

These all either reference the same article, or each other, or have no references at all. When there are news stories or official press releases about the things we talked about in the previous thread, it will be time to unlock the article. JDoorjam Talk 06:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Saw IV

Can some one delete that too? Mad Jack 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC

why delete it--AndySawFan 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)ac

Because when a page is deleted the proper (only) way to recreate it under Wikipedia procedures is through Deletion Review, not sneak it back in under a different title. For that reason, your version, at Saw Sequel (2007) has likewise been tagged for deletion. Fan-1967 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

why do you guys even care, its just a page for the fans --AndySawFan 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Then find a fan forum. This isn't one. Fan-1967 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, you guys have a page for Sin City 2, something that is all merely rumors and speculation, no official announcement of the project has ever been made. There have been more sources confirming Saw IV, as opposed to the limited amount of sources leading to information os Sin City 2.--AndySawFan 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We have nothing. If you honestly think the Sin City 2 article does not merit inclusion, feel free to run it through the process as I did for Saw IV. I'm not editing as much as I did when that happened, but if I happen to get a chance to review it and it appears to be unencyclopedic, perhaps I'll nominate it for deletion myself. As to Saw IV, the status of the project at the time of its nomination was that it was rumored. There is slightly more material about the project now, but I'd agree that it's not yet enough to unprotect the article name and allow for an article. Erechtheus 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

...and to repeat, the process for unprotecting is Deletion Review. All the discussion in the world on this page will not lead to its unprotection, and versions of the article under alternate titles will be deleted until a review determines that the article should be recreated. Fan-1967 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-penis is a bad e-penis. And stop coming down on IMDB so hard.136.176.84.103 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more reliable than the IMDB at this point, mostly because here, unlike there, it only takes a second to remove wrong information. On the IMDB, it stays up for years and years and years.... Mad Jack 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why are people so hesistant to allow people to create this article? We all know Saw IV will happen. Infact we have more proof a Saw IV will happen than a Jurassic Park IV will ever happen. -24.92.46.16 17:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Release Date Confirmed

http://movies.ign.com/articles/745/745347p1.html

Lionsgate announced a release date of Oct 26, 2007

Why would it be released on the 26th? Closest to Halloween would be the 27th, a Friday, the day that new movies are released in theatres... JackOfHearts 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at your calendar again. In 2007, the 26th is a Friday. The 27th was Friday this year. Erechtheus 03:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the pattern was going back one day from the release of the last. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 11:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I figure it would be released closest to Halloween, the same as the rest... 24.71.118.12 02:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

release date germany: february 7, 2008 --84.174.213.92 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

imdb.com (specifically http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0890870/) states "Release Date:25 October 2007 (Australia)". I tend to believe this as I watched the film in Australia when it was realeased here to the public on the advertised day of Thursday 25/10/07. 1dragon 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Movie Facts So Far

• Production begins: April 16[5]
• To be released on: October 26, 2007[6]
• To star: Tobin Bell[7]

Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 07:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

According to bloody-disgusting.com (and other sources), they also announced that Darren Lynn Bousman is directing the film as well as Leigh Whannel and James Wan as executive producers. Enter Movie 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Darren has confirmed himself that he's to be directing. He went on a rant in a myspace blog about how amazing the script was and how it was a "not a step backwards- it's a leap forward". I would post a link, but the wiki spam thing won't let me (if you're still curious search for Darren Bousman at myspace and read the blog). I'm not sure if a myspace blog credits as a good source, but its from Darren himself and its not a fake myspace. I know, I talked to him about having a myspace at a Fango Conventioin in January. -Lindsey8417 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

? Content Deletion ?

I've just checked the Saw IV article page, and the cast has gone, so has some production information I uploaded yesterday (it was still there this morning). However there is no record of someone deleting this information? Does anyone know anything about it?

Can I revert it back to what it was like this morning? Movie Junkie 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Geniac 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i have a question is this cast for real ? cuz it seems a little over the top and far fetched like the power rangers trap for instance im just asking out of curiosity

That's why I deleted the weird cast list, because obviously it was a hoax. It was well thought out and very funny, but those types of things don't belong here, so I didn't hesitate to ask before I got rid of it. Also, for future reference, please sign your posts on Wikipedia talk pages, by using four tidles (~~~~). Thank you. VonShroom 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...

If they're making Saw IV, then doesn't that mean that Jigsaw is still alive?--71.50.86.66 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Plenty of ways to make a fourth film featuring Tobin Bell that doesn't involve him surviving his fate at the end of Saw III.--CyberGhostface 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot...

"Jigsaw is back to 'haunt the living' in Saw IV. It follows on from Saw III, as Jeff (one of Jigsaws previous victims in Saw III) must find his daughter before its too late. He later finds out that it isn't over, as new pieces are added to the puzzle."
This plot was taken from Bloody-Disgusting, which got it from Fearnet. If you follow their link to fearnet, you'll notice that they say that the plot was taken from IMDb, which thus far has been notorious for fake plots. I suggest this plot be removed. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove it until a more verifiable source can back it up. It sounds like one of those fake summaries those anon morons keep on adding in here anyway.--CyberGhostface 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Movie Poster

So, what the movie poster fake and therefore removed from the article? Or was it just removed for no apparent reason? Defunct Lies 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think some fan made it with photoshop.--CyberGhostface 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Shawnee Smith

Does anybody think that Shawnee Smith's character, Amanda will return? If Tobin Bell's character is, then she may aswell, right? I hope so cause I really like her! Chris024 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Movieweb (http://www.movieweb.com/news/43/19743.php) claims that Shawnee Smith has been cast in Saw 4. However, either IMDB or Bloody Disgusting makes no mention of her. Vesica 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

71.182.190.162's Comment

does anybody have an idea for when a offical storyline will be released? it should be at least close to finishing production by now 71.182.190.162 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They will most likely release a trailer the same day Hostel: Part 2 hits the cinema, so it's possible that they release the plot around that time to. Vesica 11:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Hey, can an Admin possibly protect this page, because I think everybody is sick of reverting this "Yo mamma" person's vandalism. Just thought I'd bring up. JpGrB 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The poster

Could someone please check to verify whether or not that poster with the skull is legit? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fake Poster?

I Know Its On Joblo.com But it looks Fake. I Mean its photocopied.

Jeff

Is Jeff even going to be in this movie or what because the ending of Saw III said he would have to play a game and it mainly revolveded around him. I looked at the cast and he wasnt the re. Well if he isn't then I don't mind because I think bringing him into the series was a HUGE mistake. And that sucks Amanda is dead she was so cool!!

It would seem logical to begin the story with Jeff but not have him in for the whole story, as is the case at the start of Saw III with Eric appearing for a few minutes at the start and the end Windog 2008 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious rewrite

The current plot section, IMPO, looks a touch messy. I might want at some point to rewrite it quite a bit, primarily by replacing much of it with a cast list, as used on "The Dark Knight (film)", that would have the exact same information. Any objections? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is fine as it is, it just needs to be grouped properly. For example, all the info on Jigsaw and his return and his character in general in one paragraph, stuff about traps and tests in another, another for characters confirmed to be returning and premiering, etc. Alot of info wouldn't fit in with a character list. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, I would like to put the cast list into a text-list format used on other good film articles rather than the table we have now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, the text-version cast list on the Dark Knight page, as well as other movie pages, looks too cluttered, I think the cast-table is clear and simple, doesn't consume too much space... Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Reinhart/Denlon

I don't see why Jeff would be called Denlon. Lynn was the cheating Doctor so she used her maiden name (Denlon) as opposed to her husband's name (Reinhart). Opinions?

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This was being discussed on Jeff's talk page. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Ah crap. I missed that, lol. Thanks

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another poster

The IGN page has a poster up. Can anyone find out what it is or where it can be found? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Entourage

On an episode of Entourage, Ari tells his wife that he was given the script for Saw IV to read. Can I add this to the article somewhere?

How is it encyclopedic to the article?--CyberGhostface 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blonde woman

The blonde woman is jigsaw's old girlfriend...

Unless you have a source, that piece of info doesn't contribute anything to the article. JMJ 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how much I agree with the above statement. It does indeed pertain to this page. In the synopsis provided on the Saw IV article, it mentions Jill being Jigsaws "ex-wife." We know, however, from Saw: Rebirth, that Jill IS in fact his ex-girlfriend, not "ex-wife". 76.226.5.56 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but it wouldn't help to say "The woman in this picture might be Jill" in the article until we know that for a fact. Jordan

Not really. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. Apparently speculation is frowned upon.

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?

Do we have enough support to put a spoiler alert-tag before the plot-section? With (supposed) details on certain characters, like Det. Matthews, it could be good to have. I'm not aware of how Wikipedia handles not 100% confirmed plot details, but I think people would feel spoiled knowing that Matthews didn't die, even if it's just a red herring.

Recent discussions concerning that template have ruled it obsolete it section explictly labeled "plot", "Synopsys" and the like. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comic-Con 2007

• "Mark Burg and Darren Lynn Bousman announced that they had just got an NC-17 rating on the very first cut of the film."
• "The clip they originally wanted to show and bring got rejected, it was the opening trap, so this is instead another clip. They wanted to show the first 5 minutes but were rejected because it was “too much." This is “clearly a step above the other 3."
• "SPOILER: Burg stated that “in our world, legends never die" when asked how Jigsaw would be in the fourth movie when he clearly died at the end of Saw III. He also promised fans that there are no cheats and fans will be shocked to find out how everything happens.
• SPOILER of First Scene of Saw 4

"A guy wakes up in a funeral chamber (with the pull out tombs up the wall) with both of his eyes sewn closed. There is a chain tied around his neck and he wakes up trying to figure out what's going on. The camera pans across and there is another guy chained up to the same chain on the other end around his neck with his mouth sewn closed. The trap is one thinks the other is the cause but he can't say anything to make him stop going crazy. The guy with his mouth shout notices a key on the back of the neck of the guy with his eyes shut and therefore goes after him to try and get it.

They start going crazy and there is a machine in the middle that once they pull the chains enough it pops a lock and the machine in the middle starts winding so the chain starts shortening on both ends. The guy with his eyelids sewn closed starts going crazy and finds some tools on the ground like a hammer and a big hook. Eventually he starts swatting with them and they fight each other until one kills the other after being impaled with the hook. After the last guy gets killed while laying over the machine by having his face bashed with a hammer, the last guy rips open his mouth and gushes blood from his mouth. End!"

Comic-Con 2007 Links

1. Comic-Con 2007 Lionsgate Coverage
2. Saw IV Details from Comic-Con: First Scene and NC-17 Rating
3. 5 Minute Sneak Peek at Saw IV

--Mithos90 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with such information being added to the article, but it should be kept short and sweet. Maybe a very, I stress very, brief description of the scene that was shown. — Movie Junkie 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I Would Want to but I am still new to wiki and its Coding. I would Love and would not mind if someone else to do the honors please. Thank You. --Mithos90 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall them stating something about Saw V and the director is the second unit director of the previous films. Maybe I just hallucinated? Can anyone confirm or deny? -Lindsey8417 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two Comic-Con 2007 Exclusive Videos on Darren Lynn Bousman and Tobin Bell on Saw IV. Darren Lynn Bousman, during the interview, he mentions one of the props in the movie which is the "Knife Chair" but does not go into description about it.

• Movie Web INTERVEIW: COMIC-CON 2007 EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Darren Lynn Bousman and Tobin Bell on Saw IV!
• IGN Comic-con EXCLUSIVE Interview: Darren Lynn Bousman and Tobin Bell

--Mithos90 08:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I Finally Found the Video in Which they were interviewed Tobin Bell and Darren Lynn Bousman at the same time. The Interview by IGN and the Interview by Movie Web. Nothing too big But I just had to find it.

• IGN Comic-con EXCLUSIVE Interview: Darren Lynn Bousman and Tobin Bell

--Mithos90 07:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Knife Chair

Here is a Comic-Con 2007 Exclusive Video on Darren Lynn Bousman and Tobin Bell on Saw IV. Darren Lynn Bousman, during the interview, he mentions one of the props in the movie which one is called the "Knife Chair" but does not go into description about it.

IGN Today(August 21, 2007) Has released a Picture of the Knife Chair Itself or what looks most likely to be the Knife Chair

• IGN New Saw 4 Picture
• Movie Web INTERVEIW: COMIC-CON 2007 EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Darren Lynn Bousman and Tobin Bell on Saw IV! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mithos90 (talk • contribs) 16:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Some say 92, 95 or 108 We shall wait and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braver01 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Poster

Before any sort of revert war starts, I would like to start a discussion on which of the two posters is more suitable for the page. Any comments? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion I believe the severed head one looks better. If one is more definitive than the other, that'd be one thing, but if they're simply alternate versions then the original one should stay.--CyberGhostface 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree on the head, but why not do as the one edit had done, with adding the other poster somewhere (smaller) in the article as a released poster? Just a suggestion. JpGrB 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with the poster staying as the head. Its alot better than the other posters by far. i assume there will be a better poster when it is released though. DeadWood 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The head is only the UK poster, I think we should put up the other poster, which they officially released at comic-con... the head one is also already being used on the series page, and the "IV" poster ought to be used... Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't honestly know if all the good posters so far have been UK only but the head one is the exact same style as the ones we got here and used on the series page. They look much better and fit the style plus are important to display the continuing trend of using body parts in the official advertising. Moving through the film articles and hitting one with that crappy tray with utensils poster would ruin the flow of the saw series of articles.

EDIT: After looking through the other articles it appears that yes, only the UK gets the good posters. NEver seen those other ones and they're terrible in comparison.Darkwarriorblake 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All in favor or reinstating the body part posters (currently located on the series page) to the other films? I argue that the DVD covers are based on these posters and thus they're more iconic. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think the non-body part posters do a better job of displaying the film's plot than the others. (And the last two DVDs combined both posters by using the transparent case). For example, Jigsaw in the red cloak is better representative of Saw III, then the shot of three teeth which was never used at all in the film. And the shot of Amanda in the bear trap is more representative of Saw than a severed hand. (If it was a severed foot that'd be another thing).--CyberGhostface 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

They did that too. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the body part posters should be for the series page, let the other posters (Amanda Trap, Billy and Fingers, John in red cloak, and utensils) be used for the individual pages. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 06:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The non-body part posters must be US only because they were never used here. They are however not all that indicative of the package more than the body part ones. However the body part posters are consistent most important from movie to movie in colour-scheme and theme and are very recognisable components of the film series. The Saw 3 one for example. I don't remember seeing Jigsaw in a cloak, do you? I remember seeing him pretty much dead for the entire film but thats about it. The blue style posters are definetly much more fitting, appropriate and iconic and should really be used for the film pages.Darkwarriorblake 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cary Elwes

there's no source cited for the unconfirmed cast of Cary Elwes Nico92400 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

i love you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.180.27.240 (talk) 00:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

still no sources for Cary Elwes Nico92400 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

lol. Mechasam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.27.240 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Final Poster

IGN Today(August 29, 2007) has posted maybe the final Poster of Saw 4 before the actual release of the Movie on October 26th, 2007. Was Wondering if This Poster Would be added to the Article or voted upon the other Saw 4 Posters that have been released before this one?

IGN Quotes

"Exclusive: See the final poster for the upcoming horror sequel, only at IGN!"

• Final One-Sheet: Saw IV Poster

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If this goes up, the screenshot depicting this trap would probably be obsolete. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

On The bottom of the Poster It has almost the Whole crew from the film listed....is it possible to get more information from the credits on the bottom of the poster and add them to the article as unconfirmed or confirmed in some cases like some character roles and etc.? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The teaser trailer

A few things from that trailer should probably be mentioned in the article. If not here, then perhaps in the List of traps in the Saw film series. I noticed the following new things:

1. New look at the knife chair
2. A man (who's wearing VERY similar clothing to Jeff) and a woman tied together with chains
3. A fat man in what looks like a head crushing device
4. Man in a blue and white striped (bloody) shirt in chains
5. The "I'm sorry" probably from Jill for what she made Jigsaw do (i.e, because of her he tried to kill himself and failing, and therefore becoming Jigsaw and making people appreciate life)
6. The quote "You think it is over... but the games have just begun".
7. Rigg being captured/kidnapped/surprised

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 22:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

although you are very observant i disagree, wikipedia doesn't have a speculation section, we stick to what we know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.39.154 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but we should add the things that aren't of a speculative nature.

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

all right, cool

1 New look at the knife chair

-note that his face is unscathed in this shot, because he hasn't tried to go forward, but nothing really to report

2 A man (who's wearing VERY similar clothing to Jeff) and a woman tied together with chains

-speculation

3 A fat man in what looks like a head crushing device

-speculation

4 Man in a blue and white striped (bloody) shirt in chains

-speculation, all we know is that these people are probably in traps and in pain

5 The "I'm sorry" probably from Jill for what she made Jigsaw do (i.e, because of her he tried to kill himself and failing, and therefore becoming Jigsaw and making people appreciate life)

-serious speculation, we have no idea what sort of role jill will have. Also, the shot of supposedly jill tied to the man, screaming, has a much different voice then the woman moaning "im sorry" when the puppet is shown

6 The quote "You think it is over... but the games have just begun".

-possibly a new tagline

7 Rigg being captured/kidnapped/surprised

-important, relevant to the synopsis

1,6 and 7 all have some relevance to possible things we can add to the Saw IV article, or the traps article

Err..when did Jill make him become Jigsaw? He tried to kill himself because he was dying and realised he'd wasted his life.Darkwarriorblake 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I worded that one badly. From what I remember from rebirth and Saw 2, Jill dumped John, then he found out he had cancer and tried to kill himself because it was too much for him to take.

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 10:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed cast members

Unless there is a reputable website that discusses the possibility of these people being in the film, the section needs to be removed. I mean, technically, Julia Roberts is an unconfirmed cast member, President Bush is an unconfirmed cast member, and I'm an unconfirmed cast member. Either source it, or it shouldn't be there. AniMate 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough I suppose. I think the section's there to let people know who may be in the film, but weren't included in the official cast list (like Matthews was in Saw III).

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

confirmed cast members

I think we could put Eric Matthews in the confirmed cast members, i have a source that said he was saw in the studio when they were filming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astra Fan (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GAGETFUSION "Why was Obi in the Jill flashback in Saw III? We are trying to create a WORLD and a myth within the SAW films... think of them as a universe... Everyones interconnected somehow... Including OBI..."

Does That mean OBI is officially in Saw 4? Or do we need a better source than the Director telling us himself over a fan board? Just wondering before I ask can we add him to the confirmed list of actors.

• Darren Bousman Answers To Your Questions
• 'Saw 4' to Begin Shooting in April, Whannell Speaks! --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Shouldn't the article be protected? Zenlax 1:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the vandalism for Saw III was much heavier and for all the countless times I asked for it to be protected, all I got was a shrug and was told to simply revert any vandalism. You can try requesting it but a lot of admins are lax about this.--CyberGhostface 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I could ask one of the administrators; since I'm friendly with one of them. I'll see if it helps. Zenlax 6:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that'd be great. And (if you weren't aware of it yet, although you probably are) there is a page where people can request protection.--CyberGhostface 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he said that until the article gets really worse with vandalisms to notify him and he'll take care of it. Because at this moment, there's not that much vandalism going on. So we'll see. Zenlax 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Six (extremely interesting) new promotional shots

I wanted to make a "Promotional" section for the six new images and obviously the other promotional media but I'm a little pressed for time. Anyone wish to take a stab at it for me!?

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are these new promotional pics? ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Crap, please excuse me. http://officialsaw.com/subpage.php?PG=news

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Pictures

There were four pictures on officialsaw.com last night labeled "Fisk" and I saved them and posted them here, but you removed them immediately and when I got on Official Saw this morning theyd been removed their too??? So here they all are and can u please put them on the saw 4 page or tell me why u cant http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5742/fiskhg6.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.56 (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

SO IM NOT CRAZY! My friend Anthony on House Of Jigsaw saw these last night too... Before providing me with this! He said it was on a new News Post on Official Saw titled "Fisk", and that the four pictures were up there, taken down and replaced with this picture, which was also later taken down: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/692/pics004id1.jpg My friend Anthony also said that new spoilers have come in which are that THE POLAROIDS WITH THE DEAD PEOPLE, BELONG TO FISK as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.56 (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite obviously faked. Stop coming here with your fake crap and unsigned comments. Thanks

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not have an account on here. Thats why the posts are 'unsigned'. And EXCUSE ME, please, Do not accuse me of making these?. I use wikipedia religiously and I am not trying to corrupt the saw iv page or anything. I got the pictures from Officialsaw, and the guy who also saw them of house of jigsaw even has screenshots of Officialsaw.com in its entirety with those pictures on it. I'm not claiming that the photos are real or anything, but I am promising you that those photos WERE on Official Saw. Also, I don't know who is doing it, but I would really appreciate it if whoever it is that's doing it to stop editing my posts here on the Talk page. 209.247.5.61 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Billy's Viral Videos

Lately the last Week Billy the Puppet Has Videos of Himself Up on the Web So Far On Youtube, Bloody-disgusting and Myspace and I think he wants us to piece the "missing puzzle pieces" to a final conclusion before the 26 of October. Its been really weird. Has anyone Found anymore related to this, and wants to add it to the article? Possibly a Viral Promotion of the Film? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting trailer for the film...it's obviously real...should we put the contents of it in the trivia or something? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JjTZ4kfAjI SonicNiGHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicNiGHT (talk • contribs) 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing the viral videos around as well, and there is another one on Fearnet. They're all the same video except with the name of the place subbed out, but basically, there is a part of the website that also says "See What I See", and by clicking on it, you can enter the code 1026 (the release date of the film. A similar thing was employed last year for Saw III). Anyways, once you put in those humbers, you get this. Does anyone know if the "coming soon" part would refer to the film coming out soon, or more content to be posted there soon? - Lindsey8417 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The only Videos that I seen a Difference in is the Youtube Version and the Myspace Version where one says "See what I see" and the other doesn't, and I agree like you said the rest are just replacing the where Billy says "You are watching me on ---" to where the video is being posted on though the videos ARE OFFICIALLY "REAL". I doubt its only about letting us putting in the code then adding out email address, its more to that if they spent the time putting up videos promoting us to do what Billy is telling us. I added a cited source from Bloody-disgusting about the event so if anyone wants to look it up. Just in case. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 08:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Some one has found Comingsoon.net which has been added to the list.

• Comingsoon.net --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 05:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For Reference for anyone who wants to all all the viral videos found on the web for saw 4. Here they are:

• Youtube
• Myspace
• Bloody-disgusting
• Fearnet
• ComingSoon
• Break
• Yahoo

I seen one on IGN but it was in a advertisement link and not a public link for everyone to see. Also there are multiple different versions on one site also to let anyone know. Add to list also if anymore found. They were posted here just in case if anyone wants to include a full list in the article or a note in the article though most of the are just the same video but the name of the site. I only posted 3 of them where Billy said 3 of Rigg's main traps --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Low Quality German Video?

I have just been to the forums on rotten-tomatoes, and one person there claims to have already seen a low quality german version of saw IV. He says Laura (from saw II) faked her own seizure, and is actually Jigsaw's daughter, and that Amanda was her older sister. He also goes on to say that the families from everyone in Saw 2 will be tested. I believe that this is a fake, as do many of you, but if by any chance you find out any more info regarding this, please let me know. Any comments? I needa change —Preceding unsigned comment added by I needa change (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fake, but of course noone on the internet ever tells lies to decive people into beliving things... REexpert44 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too ridicilous to take any seriously. And there's no way that Amanda could be Jigsaw's daughter unless neither of them knew about it, as in Rebirth he speaks of her in his own private thoughts and gives no indication of any prior relationship. Obviously Amanda views John as a father figure of sorts, but I don't think the parentage is in anyway biological. It sounds really, really farfetched.--CyberGhostface 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

wth?

didn't jigsaw die in saw 3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.78.103 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he's still dead in IV. Read the article.--CyberGhostface 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Part 4 is composed of flashbacks, which take place DURING part 3.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw IV Lock

http://movies.break.com/saw4/trap.html I found this when reading the Bloody-Disgusting article about the recent videos that have appeared. I have only found one combination, 1026, that does something other than say incorrect. Lets try to find out the real combo if there is one. --Connerr 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the real code it just says "Coming Soon" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.158.45 (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did it! it is the trap with the pig mask on the poster the code is 1026 just click thos numbers nothing else. THE CLIP WAS GREAT!! 72.92.7.114 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New Pictures

New Pictures Posted up on Bloodydisgusting Two More Stills From 'Saw IV' Display the Pain!

Could this be used to describe the article about Cecil and her trap more? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as you just describe the event as its shown without any speculation, of course you can.--CyberGhostface 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See What I see

On the Saw website under See What I see, entering 1026 reveals the Hair-pulling chair.

Toronto Saw IV Screening

nice theory, but in saw 3 you actually see john putting amanda in a trap. 209.247.5.60 08:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it out eh, just in case it's not actually true. -.-

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 10:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to delete that, I read the first few lines and almost thought I'd ruined the entire freaking series story in one swoop. That should not be restored, really, its bordering on illegal due to cruelty. I'm not joking.Darkwarriorblake 14:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thier is no way thats correct! its all False Braver01 04:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you saw what he see's

wouldent see a guy with a camera crew filming him?? lol but did anybody firgure out the clue? i think one of the main themes is going to be "see what i see"Acdcfanactic727 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if we were considering his character, he's probably seeing the ceiling of the autopsy room. But that's besides the point. -- POWERSLAVE 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Its simple It means if you want to survive the traps you have to think like Jigsaw or "See What He Sees" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bling-Fish (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an expert on the films, but if she has a pig mask on maybe he means "see her as I see her - ugly". Or he urges the dude to leave, right? "See what I see. Walk away." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.236.24 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Time length

The film is really 107 minutes long according to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=saw4.htm and http://www.fandango.com/sawiv_103184/movietimes?wssac=58&wssaffid=11481_REGWebsite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutin (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

new trailer of the film

anybody know where i can see the new trailer where it shows the scene from the first film when Adam and Dr. Gordon discover that the saws were there to cut their own feet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braver01 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=20628884 PhilShady 12:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admiral Ackbar

This is pretty random, but is it just me, or is the slogan on the posters remind you of Admiral Ackbar's saying, "It's A Trap"! 24.176.198.29 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah , this should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It Really Shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xchiodosx (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Like This? xD btw. Is it now against Wiki to add the Film's Taglines now? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Obi/Various Characters

Obi was not in Saw IV, as well as a few characters that were slated to be in the film. (i.e., Corbett Reinheart, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.179.29 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very Unprofessional Plot Summary

I'd just like to mention that the plot summary currently on the article, as of 10/26 11:09 PST is very unprofessional sounding. It looks like it was written by a 15 year old in an Instant Messaging coversation to a friend, complete with typos and the author's own opinions (e.g. "thats gross, btw"). Could someone please rewrite this (and add a spoiler template) so we have a clear and easy to read plot of this great movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.164.105 (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the spoiler tag. But the plot, someone else would have to work on that. Cause I haven't seen the film. So..... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a go guys, its almost offensive in its immaturity. And the film is AWESOME, go watch it ASAP. Darkwarriorblake 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is very, very unprofessional. But, I also have not seen the movie yet. I will be within the next few days. But sadly, the spoiler tag shouldn't be there. It is irrelevant. JpGrB 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Signed, I actually read this synopsis on the IMDB board for the film. The poster then didn't even have any new info posted, he had just summed up the scenes we already knew before release. Someone literally copied this from an IMDB post, and should be flogged severely for it. 70.108.27.194 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Anon

If this is true, then the information before it, should be re-added. But again, I haven't seen the film. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Only the plot section should be re-added, until someone who has seen it can add the material up to Wikipedia standards. JpGrB 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have realized it was changed. Thank you. JpGrB 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Darkwarriorblake. If I were you, I'd go around, and start updating any Saw IV related articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What Saw related articles are there?Darkwarriorblake 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The List of Saw characters. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I did Morgan, ivan and Cecil. Might do more later if I find time.Darkwarriorblake 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but i'd put the unproffesional and tackless writing behind the Plot Summary to someone with very little literary skill. I' 14 and I found the article to make the film out to be a B-movie undeserving of a place in wikipedia. Don't Insult the Intelligence of those younger than yourselves simply because of a general consensus that all teenagers write in a shoddy manor! Xchiodosx 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm 16, and I say that was a horrible writing job. I'm sorry, but I believe if you cannot write up to your grade level, and, more importantly, Wikipedia's standards, you shouldn't write for Wikipedia. JpGrB 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline?

I think due to the non-linear basis on the new sequel in relation to SAW 3--along with new information on Jigsaw and Jill's past, a SAW Timeline should be made.68.117.23.170 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a timeline listing all the major events in ALL of the movies into chronological order. Yeldarb68 07:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree but there is no definite, time when the events occurred in the Films. The only definite ones is that Detective Eric Mathews was held captive Between Saw 2's events and Saw 3 & 4 seeing they occurred at the same time. Also With John and Jill's relationship, We do not know what is the exact time that took place in John's life....yet From the mischariged of their child to him finding he had a tumor then committing suicide which then goes on to his first traps, Billy Cecil then if I concur Saw, when Amanda became Jigsaw's apprentice, Saw II, when Holffman became Jigsaw's apprentice then Saw 3 & 4 plus the definite time where he first met this victims and the time they were kidnapped and tested in Jigsaw's games and then found dead by the police with their own timeliness. To much factors have to be considered seeing only a handfull of dates where given in the film's. Also they bonus features of the DvD might help seeing that, people in the Saw world are shown and their reactions to film's events....if u see what I mean. Like the Saw News report in the first DVD then the Documentary of that guy....can't remember who wanted to learn more about Jigsaw in the Saw 2 DVD.

btw sorry guys if what I posted is misleading correct me if I am not clear on something or I posted something wrong --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, doesn't Rigg get let off because Hoffman lies for him in the office? The lawyer represents the abusive father, and has no interest in letting Rigg go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.241.220 (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurasies?

I realize the film just came out, but I've noticed several discrepencies. Maria is KILLED, not subdued, the fact Rigg puts Ivan in his trap isn't mentioned, Perez was not poisoned, she just had shards of puppet embedded in her face. Also, the tense changes throughout the article--which may become confusing to readers.68.117.23.170 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's Maria? The wife? Brenda was the chick in the chair. She was subdued, i saw her alive when Rigg left. She died later. As for the tense, I wrote it all in one go, I keep going over it to fix it but I'm not flawless. I'm pretty sure it mentions that Rigg forces Ivan to get into the trap. As for Perez, that might be my mistake, the puppet was shaterred but I didn't see any shards, looked more like a gas.Darkwarriorblake 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Brenda's who I meant. She died due to Rigg throwing her into a the mirror, she had glass shards in her neck.68.117.23.170 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I know she was messed up but I could have swore she was breathing when Rigg left. No doubt she died from that and her injuries from the chair but I still am sure she was alive when he left.Darkwarriorblake 23:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotta remember, Ive only watched it once so far and stuff happens quick. So I might have missed things, Ive done the synopsis to the best of my memory.Darkwarriorblake 23:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It also signifies the beginning of Rigg's slippery slope, having killed her. I didn't notice at first either, but when her body's found, you can clearly see a large section of mirror lodged in her throat. I realize the movie first came out, I'm just trying to help clear some stuff up.

]

68.117.23.170 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

It's too long and detailed, it has to be shortened, and a spoiler tag should be placed at the begining. --VorangorTheDemon 00:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see it is too long, but the spoiler is not needed. And I would rewrite it, but, as odd as it sounds, that would require me to read it, which I won't do yet. (As I have not seen the movie.) JpGrB 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The story is too complex and moves too much through different periods of time to shorten it more than it is without it being incomrehensible and not all that much of use as a synopsis of the actual film.Darkwarriorblake 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a synopsis, so it shouldn't have every detail. But as I said earlier, I have not yet seen the film. So, I understand if you do not take my opinions, I'm just saying based off of other movie articles I've seen and partially been apart of. JpGrB 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This happens with nearly every 'big' film on wiki now. Who are these people that document films on here in such detail? The best place for them is dictionary.com so they can learn the meaning of the word 'synopsis'. Moreover, these extensive plot summaries never get shortened or rewritten and when they do some geek makes them even bigger. Why dont I rewrite the Saw IV synopsis myself? I havent seen the film, and now i read the synopsis I now dont need to :P 195.183.80.133 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it a problem, esp. for the people that didn't understand the movie. BTW I see it says Plot, not Synopsis. 67.142.130.42 08:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)!

Important Question

Note: Don't read if you do not want a Saw 4 plot element to be spoiled. This is probably more related to Saw 3, but I thought I would have posted it here since I have learned it from Saw 4. Everybody remembers when Kerry was in the angel trap? If you remember that, I'm sure you remember that Kerry (close to her death) looks up and says "you" before she dies. In the Saw 3 article it states that she saw Amanda. However, we learn in Saw IV that Forensic Hoffman was helping out Jigsaw and Amanda in the time period of Saw 3. So is it beyond possibility that Kerry looked up and saw Forensic Hoffman and not Amanda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I needa change (talk • contribs) 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

> I think it begs to ask if Hoffman was really the one who made the unescapable traps, and not Amanda, who was just insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.27.194 (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Towards the end of Saw III, the person she looks up at is revealed to be Amanda - I think it's safe to assume Amanda was making the traps that were impossible to escape from, or else the traps throughout Saw IV (such as Art's trap) would also have be inescapable. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another question, I hate myself for posting it here, but I don't want to venture to fan boards. Anyone know what the glass case was sposed to be for? Jigsaw had a cover over it, freaked out when Jill went to touch it. It was revealed but never used. Why not cut that out if they cut out that scene later in the movie? Or will it come up again in V and VI? Mientkiewicz5508 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Was that trap with the Glass cut out of the final movie? put posted up on the Internet as a teaser? It was mention on the Traps article. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it will be used in later films, I doubt something that significant was cut out, only to appear on the DVD version or something. I hate to be a kill-joy though, as I could debate Saw until I died of starvation, but I'm afraid these talk pages are only for dicussion about the article itself, not the subject. Sorry if it appears that I'm telling you to bugger off, because I'm trying to avoid that, I just need to inform you that (as much as I love discussing Saw, as I said) it's rather off-topic chat. Sorry! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea The Haunted Angel is Right this is not a Discussion Page even though we want it to be because we love Saw so much but this page is meant to improve the Article Now Mientkiewicz The Glass Case Trap was shown in the film but not the actual trap in progress itself. Why We do not know why it did not make it into the film but there has been screen shots of the trap at works on its victim. Here is the article and enjoy. Btw its called the "Glass Lined Box" at the moment. Not sure if thats the traps real name. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the photo online, the Glass Box has Zepp, played by Michael Emerson, inside the box in his underwear. This was supposed to be Zepp's first test, but the scene was deleted from the film. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a cited reference the can comfirm that this was the first test to prove if it was Zepp inside the Glass boxed trap? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Zep , it was Vagrant, played by that guy from urban legend.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 

User Ratings

I think the user ratings from rottentomatoes.com should be posted in the reception section, but the rules basically say not too. So what is it? I had readded it before, then saw that the rules say not too. But User:Wikirocks2 undid it. Drew 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"plot production"?!

What is the point of the "Plot production" section anyway? It's all moot now that's the film's been released. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot hole?

In one of the opening scenes, Rigg bursts through a door to find Kerry in the impossible trap. This is a clear indicator that this scene occurs before / during the events of Saw III. However, while discussing the trap, the detectives mention Amanda as the one setting it up, but then rule her out. How do the detectives know about Amanda at this point in time? 24.119.117.120 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this has been pointed out. Also, its not like anyone could have told them that Amanda made it; everyone who knew that are dead.--CyberGhostface 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PLOT PROBLEMS?

After reviewing the movie for the umpteenth time, i'm sorry to say that the door DOES close after jigsaw is killed, because Agent Strahm has to open the door to get in there. The only part that truly make no sense is that jeff was holding a gun when strahm got in there, instead on the saw that he cut jigsaw with, unless he picked up Amanda's gun after the door closed and we couldn't see him... but in conclusion, the door did close. it appears that the door locks from the inside and can be accessed from the outside(like a meat freezer door), unless locked from the outside(which hoffman did upon reclosing the door) 216.141.228.112 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not neccesarily true. daniel matthews got out...and theres a six month gap between saw 2 and 3(as discovered in saw 4..."eric's been missing for six months, kerry was missing for 4 days..."), so it's very possible that after the brazen escape of a "serial killer" and the disappearance of multiple people, they probably interviewed him and deduced that she, being the only other survive but still MIA, and that she was a test subject at one time, is probably working with Jigsaw... this is in reference to the PLOT HOLES topic

new section - dvd release

I was wondering if it would be alright to add a dvd section to the Saw 4 page with the following information? - "The Saw IV DVD is expected to be released in both rated and unrated editions on January 22, 2008." - here is where I got the information from (sourcing) - http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/saw-iv.html - does anyone have anny comments on adding this new section? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah someone needs to add this section. I'll do it later tonight if no one else does before me. I hope this "Unrated Director's Cut" is really 108 minutes because Saw IV is barely 90 minutes in the theatrical release. The 108 min running time on here is completely incorrect, it was about 88 minutes long. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this "Directors Cut" version of Saw IV the final DVD release of this year? Like the past Saw films the final version of the uncut unedited film special editions comes out around October Like the Tuesday before Halloween. Would this film be the same case this year or it would different seeing that Saw V will have a 50 50 chance to come out this year or next year seeing they use the previous film to be released on DVD around that time? Its something that should be mentioned in the article also. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well after listening to the commentary with Darren Bousman and Lyriq Bent, it's most likely that when the 2 disc of Saw IV is released on 10/21/08, it will just be called "Unrated Extended Cut". Supposedly the first cut of the film is 109 minutes and that became 90 mins in theaters and DLB points out how many scenes were really shortened a lot by an editor that was used by the producers because DLB had to start shooting Repo when he wrapped Saw IV and could not oversee the editing process like he did for Saw II and III. He says on the commentary that hopefully he will be able to restore a lot of the longer version for the next release. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks. It needs to be cited that another version of the film is coming out around that time to let the readers of the article know that this isnt the final version of the film. Till then Ill wait to buy the DVD till this October. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever put under the DVD section that the shot of Hoffman unstrapping himself from his chair is absent from the unrated version is completely wrong because that shot is still in the film totally unchanged from the theatrical version so I removed that citation. I also added Darren's Video Diary to the extras section - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saw4final.jpg

Image:Saw4final.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 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Save as I save

Yeah, sorry, I don't understand this. Why didn't Rigg help her? I know he was TOLD not to help her, but why not? What would have been the consequences if he helped pull out the last rod and unlocked her? 75.75.110.235 (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in real life she would have just told him that there was a knife under the TV stand so he could cut her hair from the chair to avoid her SCALP GETTING RIPPED OFF. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mixed reviews?

I've been reverted a couple of times now (without any comment whatsoever) by an anon editor after I changed "Critics gave the film mixed reviews" to "Critics gave the film mostly negative reviews". [8] [9] [10] It seems obvious to me that the reviews of this film are mostly negative, and cannot reasonably be described as "mixed". Am I missing something here, or should I ask for semi-protection of the page if this continues? --Conti|✉ 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

UK DVD

The UK DVD release at Blockbuster was today - special promo box versions were available. One had a hologram (I think) with a 3D=like image of the evil puppet. The other one had two gimmicks - press a button and you heard the 'I want to play a game' warning plus you could watch a circular saw inside whizzing round inside. Irresistible. IMHO it's a great addition to the Saw genre. Royzee (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception

"Critics gave the film mostly negative reviews" but the movie was #1 the release week !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico92400 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What has that to do with the view of the critics? Lots of critically acclaimed movies don't make a lot of money, and vice versa. --Conti|✉ 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

yes but there's a huge divergence between people and critics, i don't know if it's good or wrong but that questions about the criterions of what a good film is.Nico92400 (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cecil's Test

I disagree with the article's statement that Cecil failed to pass his test. Cecil has to push his face through knives, having been told doing so will release himself from the chair he is sitting on. He pushes, and as a result the chair falls to pieces. He shows his eagerness to live is greater than his need to keep a pretty face. Does anyone disagree before I change the article Kev (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do and so does the screen shot which shows the wrist restraints still in his arms and (IIRC) the film commentary that says the chair collapsed. He may have attempted the test but it collapsed before he completed it Agent452 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Iron Rod Trap

Riggs doesn't pull out the final rod from the lady, he gives her his coat and tells her that she has to do it herself. In fact, the spear that shoots across the room and kills the photographer was meant to kill the woman had he tried to remove the rod himself. I'm gunna put this in the article, if anyone objects, feel free to remove it. [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is untrue, SonicNiGHT. The rod that shoots across the room was not meant to kill the woman, and yes, Rigg does pull the final rod out of her, but only in the Unrated edition of the movie. It was removed from the theatrical edition.

MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Traps

There's no longer "list of trap of saw movies" page. It's sad. Nico92400 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing lower sections

I've noticed the page is missing all sections beneath the 'DVD and Blu-ray release' section. If there is any way to fix this, how? ObsessiveJoBroDisorder (talk) 3:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard revert, which I have done. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of it, while re-adding the updated versions. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight given to positive reviews

While I understand that fans of the film are the most likely to be editing the page, the selection of review quotes seems somewhat biased. After noting that Rotten Tomatoes gives an 18% fresh rating, considerably more space is given to positive reviews of the film than negative. In all honesty, I think there are just too many review quotes here anyway. We can start to improve the section by cutting out a lot of those positive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howfar (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was only one more positive review than negative, so I added a negative review to balance it out.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot

Even though it has too much detail, it is incorrecting in placing the flashback told by Jill together - they come in stages. -- Beardo (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Plots are not blow by blow accounts. The order is unimportant, that there are a few flashbacks scattered throughout the film does not mean we scatter them in the summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Midquel

Is this a midquel or a sidequel? Isn't it a sidequel because it takes place at the same time as Saw III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saw IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028145921/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=10102 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=10102

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)