Talk:Saw VI/Archive 2

Hoffman kidnapped William?
Do we know for sure Hoffman is the architect of this movie's tests for William? Seems odd that Hoffman would embark on this particular project since Kramer meant nothing to him. Seems to make more sense this was a project that Kramer designed before dying and Jill carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.189.102 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Issues with article
I see this article was up for nomination at WP:HORROR, and I have a few issues with it. The first being the plot is far too long per WP:FILMPLOT and some of those copyrighted image posters below do not enhance the article or the text they are next too. See WP:IG for more information. I also think there is a bias in the reception section which mentions the more positive reviews, without mentioning the negative ones it received. And it received a greater amount of those then the positive ones mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhhh the plot was shorter than that, jesus, I don't know what happened. Now people don't even have to watch the movie! LOL.  I'll see what I can do about that issue.  The posters below -- I thought about adding a snippet about the Saw annual blood drive, so we could keep that pic.  About the reception, I'll see if I can find some negative reviews from reliable sources.  I didn't write that, I just wrote in the RT and MC scores.  Not to sound to bias, but this one did receive better praise than IV or V, but failed at the box office (thanks to Paranormal Activity and the bad taste left in fans mouth from V).  I'll see if I can fix this today.  Thanks for stopping by, I really appreciate it. :-). -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for taking my nitpicking with stride. ;) To get some better sources for critical reviews I'd recommend either here or here. It's good to see such a popular film with lots of citations here. I haven't seen any of the Saw flicks so I would feel uncomfortable contributing too much to it. Good luck with cleaning-up the article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I pulled out an earlier, much shorter version of the plot and put it into the article. 71.68.59.35 (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It looks like this user just re-did the plot.  That's not how plots should be written here.  Thank you for restoring the older version. --  Mike   Allen   17:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't tell you anything about the task at the start of the film —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifersangelx111 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Folks usually watch the film to find things like that out. — Mike   Allen   05:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Director's Cut
Why does it not tell how the director's cut is different from theactrical cut, like the other saw movies do? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, someone needs to write one up. I came here looking for an explanation of the post-credits scene with Amanda and Corbett on the Director's Cut.  I found the info on the Characters page though. -24.185.59.146 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, because Wikipedia only goes by the theatrical version. It was added on Amanda's page and the Saw character page though.  Now having a list of differences of the versions is not encyclopedic.  The other Saw pages are in bad shape compared to the GA criteria.  With that said, this site Movie-Censorship.com will tell you everything you need to know about the DC and TC.  I would add it in the the external links, but it may fail WP:ELNO.   Mike   Allen  19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Great job with the article! Your development as an editor certainly shows. :) I have a few comments. In the "Casting" section, part of it focuses on when someone was cast and the fact someone was cast. I think that in retrospect, this information does not stand the test of time. We know who is in the film by now, and dates are not always important. (The information about Tanedra Howard is appropriate, but the part about LionsGate's public statement is outdated.) In addition, I believe there should be a "Cast" section. I know that Collectonian and some others think that cast lists should be merged into plot summaries, but I've been rethinking this approach. It is too much to expect a reader to delve into the summary of a film to identify actors. I have not seen the film, and in trying to see names, my eyes are dancing across spoilerific paragraphs to see these names. A cast list, in my opinion, is a more navigable approach -- it just should not be too long. There are different ways to present the cast; prose would work if there are a handful of actors, and lists would work if there are a lot of actors. You could also do both -- list the actors and their roles, then have prose right after, explaining casting details. (This way, the actors' wiki-links are grouped in one place for ease of navigation.) For example, what I started doing at Panic Room (film). Just food for thought.

My other comment is about additional information for the film. I notice that this article is dependent on online articles, and I think you could find more information in periodicals. For example, I am pretty sure Fangoria would cover this film in detail, especially production-wise. Most of their articles are not online, so it requires research. If you want to continue building the article, see if you can visit a public library or a university library and use the databases to find information about Saw VI. Some references could be found via subscription link and printed out, and some references may need to be dug out of the stacks. Try to consider what periodicals this film could be covered in (horror and film and both) and look up these magazines around August-September 2009. You might find some more nuggets of information! In any case, I fully agree with the Good Article assessment, and keep up the good work! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Eric for reviewing this article and your comments!   About the casting:  I see what you mean.  I've just noticed that recently it's a been a trend to try and turn cast lists into prose.  Though readers have voiced their concerns about the complete removal of cast lists, so obviously it was useful to readers.   I think I'll follow your advice "switching" it up (cast list and prose).   I'll cook up something regarding the cast in my playbox soon.  I have a cast list on Salt, though it's one of the "generic" kinds. lol


 * I do know Fangoria covers the films each year (around that time) and they do not keep articles on their websites for long. I've already figured that out. lol.  I'll see what I can find.  I'm just not sure about other offline sources, though maybe I'll be surprised once I start researching.  Thank you again. :D  Mike   Allen   05:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Go here and put in your zip code. Hopefully a location near you pops up! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read over this a few times just for sentence flow and readability (my forte) and didn't spot anything glaringly obvious along those lines. Just wanted to let you know someone else had some eyes on it, too. If I do spot anything, I'll be bold, as it were. Millahnna (mouse) talk  05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Millahnna. :-)  Mike  Allen   21:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack cover art?
Why can the cover art for the soundtrack not be shown here? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See here. But that may be changed per the peer review if I can not find a good screenshot/image of the carousel trap.  That poster is the only good one.  But if I use it, I would use the film poster.   Mike   Allen   21:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand your explanation. The response at WT:FILM was that it looks okay without the cover, not to remove it. I don't see anything saying that the cover art must be removed if you already have one available. I also don't understand how the movie poster is related to the soundtrack cover art? Maybe it's because I'm an avid (or almost exclusive) editor of album articles, but I think the album infobox just looks silly without the cover art included. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on nominating the article for FA and the criteria requires a pretty solid non-free use rationale to include copyright images. The poster I'm talking about is this one. I may have to use that poster in place of an actual image in the film, thus it would be redundant include the soundtrack image.  Frankly I don't see why an infobox needs to be at the bottom of an article anyway, all of the key points is covered in the prose right next to it.  But oh well, there seems to be consensus to include it.  Mike   Allen   04:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand now. I have not actually seen the film, and did not know what the soundtrack's cover art was depicting. I had only cleaned up the separate soundtrack article and it has been on my watchlist since then. You should know that Wikiproject Album recently made the decision to no longer include reviews in the infobox. See WP:ALBUMS. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, that's fine. But why is "review" still included in the template? lol  Mike   Allen   06:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox has been in a transitional period for a long long time now. One editor was working on a bot to automatically move this information to an Album ratings template, but I have no clue what happened to that. Because simply shutting off the field would cause sources to vanish from the article, which would be doing more harm than good, a bot is necessary to go through thousands of articles instead of dumping that tedious and time consuming task on a group of people. Until the bot is up and running, the consensus was made to avoid using the field in favor of the new template. For situations like this where there is only one review, generally I like to avoid the ratings template altogether and include a summary of the one review. Much like what has already been done here. Fezmar9 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Covering the soundtrack in the article, including the info-box, but not allowing the cover of the album? Seem likes we're sacrificing information just for a silly "GA" status. Jasper420  02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sacrificing information by not including an image? There's already two non free images on the page. — Mike  Allen   03:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? none of those images are illustrating the cover art to the soundtrack. Jasper420 15:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The text is sufficient enough to illustrate the soundtrack. Thank you. — Mike  Allen   22:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no it is not. EVERY article covering a music album has an image of that albums cover. INCLUDING movie articles in which the soundtrack is embedded. Your argument makes no sense. Jasper420 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My argument is based on Wikipedia's foundation--the free encyclopedia. Not non-free or fair use, but free. In most cases soundtrack images shouldn't be included in film articles since they are often the same image as the film poster. Feel free to verify this at WT:FILM. — Mike  Allen   22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jasper, if the soundtrack was notable enough for its own album article, then it may warrant an album cover image. Here, the section means it is a sub-topic of the main topic, which is the film itself. See Batman (1989 film) as an example; it links to the stand-alone article about the album at Batman (album). We cannot be gratuitous about using cover images; Wikipedia's policy toward non-free content indicates using as little of that kind of content as possible. Unless the soundtrack has plentiful significant coverage and warrants being a stand-alone topic, it's too lenient to use a cover image. (I assume that the distinction is being made here that the sub-article is about the film score.) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually its about the soundtrack. The score, oddly enough, has its own article here, as do several other Saw soundtrack/scores. Jasper420 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I mean. There is a score article but not a soundtrack article. Sometimes there's a distinction, sometimes there's not. Is the soundtrack for this film notable enough to be its own topic? (Feel free to ask if there needs to be stand-alone articles about scores; I am thinking no, but it should be a separate discussion.) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, yes, the two are quite different. The score is the atmospheric music used throughout the film, while the "soundtrack" is actually a collection of heavy metal songs "inspired by" the film, but not actually present. And as for it being a seperate article, it could be. Several other Saw soundtrack/scores have articles. Jasper420 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But they shouldn't all have separate articles. They aren't particular notable. They didn't reach the Billboard, didn't sale much, and didn't win any awards.  The articles just list the songs.  Amazon.com does that, without the original research. ;-) — Mike   Allen   01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What Original Research would you be refering to? The finding of the album art? Jasper420 02:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I mean material (text) that are in some of those articles. — Mike  Allen   02:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WT:FILM did not even mention soundtracks, let alone covers to them. I'm failing to see any logic as to why an image of a soundtrack album is innapropriate, simply because it is Non-free. Jasper420 02:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Acid Trap Edit War
Hi,

Can I have an opinion on this.

The Acid Trap that kills William at the end was blatantly set up so that if he stood facing Brent and Tara to beg for his life then he would be hit by the needles. Whereas if he stood next to Pamela's cell then they would have missed him and the acid would have instead burned Tara and Brent.

The whole point of Jigsaw's philosopy was prediction of human behaviour (he tells Hoffman that once you understand it it "leaves nothing to chance"). So....the other editor keeps removing this, without explanation (except stating it is my interpretation whereas I believe it is a valid plot point that should be included as it is an important but subtle part of the movie's story.

Would also like to point out that this editor didn't know what "N.B." meant, leading me to question his knowledge of basic editing skills in the first place. --Cziltang mexico (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't an "edit war", unless you were the IP that inserted it in the first place. You don't add N.B in middle of a plot summary---look around. The plot should be precise, not go into every detail or interpretation.  I'm not going to delete it at the moment, because I'm sure someone else will sooner or later.  ;-)  Thank you. — Mike   Allen   01:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea what N.B. means in that context either; nota bene? If that's the case, it's as useless as "interestingly," and "it should be noted that." I agree with MikeAllen that the text you are adding constitutes WP:OR, and is not needed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Saw VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141105011200/http://bandsawselect.com:80/ to http://bandsawselect.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091104063148/http://www.calendarlive.com:80/movies/reviews/cl-et-saw23-2009oct24,0,7768845.story to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-saw23-2009oct24,0,7768845.story

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)