Talk:Saw VI/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Redirect.

It seems like there's more at the Saw V#Sequel section. Does anymore else think we should redirect for now? --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Saw 6 OFFICIALLY confirmed by lionsgate ? If yes Then this page shouldn't be removed. Nico92400 (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw 6 has been confirmed by Lionsgate ever since Tobin Bell and Costas Mandylor signed up for two more installments prior to Saw IV being released. This page should be left undeleted. Otherwise we might as well delete the article of the upcoming Saw game. Carbo45 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

These comments would be better suited for the AfD page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The release date will be 10/23/09, not 10/30/09. Every Saw film has been released the Friday before Halloween. This incorrect date of 10/30 should be changed. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.233.138 (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of seeing the USA release dates when the "World Premiere" of the movie is in Australia. Everything in Wikipedia is inevitably USA-biased - even the Saw (film) page stats "Originally rated NC-17 for strong, graphic violence, the film was slightly edited to achieve an R rating." This is a biased account. An non-biased account would read "The movie was censored to achieve an R rating by the MPAA for its USA theatrical release". Remember, the MPAA isn't the only classification body in the world to have an R rating, and this edit may not apply overseas. For instance, when Robocop was released in Australia it was cut to an M15+ level (OFLC); whereas in the USA it was cut to an R level (MPAA). Other hollywood films have been cut in the USA for its theatrical release while other theatrical releases are unedited - one such example is Blade Runner - although this trend seems to be more common nowadays than it was back then. Furthermore, I don't think "uncut" versions should have their own little section - I think it should be the other way around. That is "the USA-theatrical version consisted of these cuts/edits..." instead of "the uncut version features the following extended scenes..." One last thing. This page is about the seventh Saw film; and the sixth feature-length Saw film. But the article reads simply: "Saw VI is the upcoming sixth instalment to the Saw film series." This is ignoring the original Saw film, and pretending it doesn't exist; which is re-writing history and making Saw (2004) the first Saw film! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlikPlok (talk • contribs) 07:34, October 29, 2008

Okay, sorry for talking about US release dates for an AMERICAN FILM. They just announced that release date first. And the original Saw film isn't conisdered part of the Saw series. Misteryoshi}} 18:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

...I don't think you understand how time works. Halloween is October 31st, a Saturday. Meaning Friday October 30th is the Friday before Halloween. Dragon of the Pants (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SAW VI has not yet been confirmed by LionsGate, there is reference to there being a SAW VI and also a further four more in the SAW series. But untill this is confirmed in writing, by ether LionsGate or the other participating companys. Then the page itself needs to be removed, also reference in other sections for the "Un confirmed" release of SAW VI need to be removed as well.mapadale (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SAW VI

i made the page with a template for "future film" however my internet connection was interrupted and i was unable to finish the page. Saw VI has had enough press release information, i believe, to warrant a page. If you will take note, the page for SAW V was created long before the release date. Also, as this is the next series in the title, i feel it appropriate that the page be made already. I will revert the page back to how it was when i left it, and continue from where i left. thankyou. Corythepaperboy (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to thoroughly read WP:NFF. Your point about Saw V is an "other stuff exists" argument, and is not relevant solely by the virtue that we missed it last time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're just being rude and sarcastic by this stage. There are plenty of pages worthy of your attention; junk, etc. This page is worthy of existing; even if filming has not yet commenced. It will save time when it IS being filmed, as it will already be made. Set a date; this time next year, if nothing has been comfirmed about it being filmed or not, then delete the page. Corythepaperboy (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I will also point out that "The winner of the VH1 reality show Scream Queens will win a role in the film" This confirms enough that there will be a SAW VI; contracts made by the Scream Queens management would not allow otherwise. Could you imagine? Hey, you MIGHT win a role in a film that MAY NOT be made. Unlikely, I'm sorry. So just let the page be. Thanks. Corythepaperboy (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're so upset, but that's neither here nor there. You are not any more privy to the contract details regarding the TV show, and so any belief that a contest involving the film equals the certainty of production will have to remain your own original research. Despite my rather dim view of film producers, however, I do not think so little of their business acumen as to believe that any would actually put themselves into a position to be legally forced to spend millions of dollars on a production because of a TV contest. Productions are cancelled all the time, for a variety of reasons too numerous to list, and contracts are regularly broken; indeed, they are usually structured in ways to compensate if a film does not happen. (See pay or play contract.)

Now, please understand that no one is declaring that this film isn't going to happen, nor are we trying to suppress the information. But our guideline regarding this is that until the film is rolling, anything can happen. And it often does - dozens of films stall, cancel, or go back to development - many of them well into pre-production, some of them days or weeks away from starting, and well into set-building. Because of this, we develop the information on either the film series page or the source material's article - whichever best applies. When it starts filming, the article is created, because generally that's the point where the amount of money invested makes it severely disadvantageous for a production to be cancelled for reasons outside of catastrophe. That's what film insurance and bonding exists for - to complete the film by any means. Sorry if that irks you, but this wasn't something concocted for laughs - we used to have dozens of articles for unshot films, many of which never were shot, despite "every assurance" from editors who were convinced that they eventually would. The guideline exists because we aren't in a position to make those judgment calls, and despite the presence of stars, studios, or money, plenty of those films don't wind up shooting. So please don't view this as someone not believing the film is going to be made: it has nothing to do with you or us, and everything to do with the mercurial nature of film production. (Entourage is an only-slightly-exagerrated look at this side of things.) Perhaps the long and tortuous history of Superman V is worth a glance? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

CAN SOMEBODY FIX THE SUMMERY, PLEASE? LAWRENCE GORDON MAKES NO APPEARENCE IN THE FILM. THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE SUMMARY IS A LIE! LAWRENCE NEVER APPEARS AT THE LAST SECOND LAUGHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatkrazyguyukno (talk • contribs) 12:38, October 24, 2009

 Done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

March 24th, 2009 Full Article

I have made Saw VI into a full, cited, and encyclopedic article using FACTS about the CONFIRMED film. Everything is substantiated here and the one part that said something similar to "Cary Elwes MAY reappear in the film" has been put as exactly that by the source and the possibility is verifiable.

Therefore, this is a good article that has no reason to be put back to a redirect. Please discuss any thoughts if this article's worthiness here.

Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Take you CAPS lock OFF. SHOUTING will not change the GUIDELINES. Look at this before you continue. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to stay neutral in this one, but I'd like to bring up a few different things I've found. First is articles, all of which say filming starts on March 30. But per the IMDb listing, filming has already started, and that was updated four days ago. So, um, yeah. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit, it's been deleted !! There's no reason te remove this article. Nico92400 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My sincere apologies if it seemed like I was shouting. I was simply making my point to those who disregard reason and violate WP policies blatantly. Saw VI has commenced filming and therefore WP:NFF states this film should have its own page. End of discussion. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw Video Game correllation?

Does anyone else see a reason to incorporate the fact that the Saw videogame will release in the same timeframe? Though, they are separate media forms and different plot lines. Any ideas? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. All the information about the videogame is contained in its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.99.109 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cary Elwes

Does this article deserve a semi-protection yet ? Removing Cary Elwes in Casting section create an editing conflict. Still there's no cource for that Nico92400 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection has been justified. It's going to take a bit more to get to that level. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It finally got it Nico92400 (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Official Plot Synopsis

So, Lionsgate has released the official plot synopsis, and I think for the time being, it should remain quoted, as-is, without changes or embelishment. Someone has already tried to edit it from it's original wording, and it read awkwardly and sounded unsure and even like the person was just assuming details based on the two sentences we have. It's been changed back by someone else for now. I just think that until we get more official details, it needs to stay as-is. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Beyond the official synopsis, it's all WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a copyvio, and against the rules and regulations to post the official synopsis? It is the exact same thing just reworded. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By that rational, wouldn't all the websites posting the official synopsis be guity of copyvio? I simply don't see why the official synopsis released by Lionsgate shouldn't be the one posted. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumors of Dr. Gordon's (Cary Elwes) return?

A lot is buzzing in the Saw community about speculation that Dr. Gordon from Saw I will return. I know that it has been prevalent in all of the movies for a Dr. Gordon appearance, but I also think that it should be noted in this article since there has been much evidence accumulated since —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.76.236 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's always been speculated with each and every sequel. Unless the producers, a star, or Cary himself make mention of it, it's 100% unneeded here. "Evidence" means nothing unless it can be properly sourced by somewhere or something reliable, then it can be added. If not it's just original, tirvial nothingness. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sequel section?

Just so we're clear, the Sequel section doesn't really belong here. It belongs at Saw (franchise)#Future. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly my point. The argument that the other pages had it has a number of faults. First, just because other pages do it doesn't mean it's correct for this page. Second, the other pages had more to go on, especially seeing as 4, 5, and 6 were all confirmed at once, Tobin Bell and Costas Mandylor had both signed deals, etc. This only has the writers and director. That's pretty much it. A mention at the franchise page is fine for now. Once more details come about I will be more than glad to add the section myself. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DVD RELEASE

The Dvd Will Be Released January 19th 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.91.109 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC) This Was Announced In June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejace3836 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Find a source. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey we don't need a source this is the time they always come on dvd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigkiller3836 (talk • contribs) 14:43, September 18, 2009

Yes, you do need a source. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I reverted this article down to Start class as it does not qualify for a C class quite yet. All Saw films, I-V, are much more detailed and thorough articles and have only a Start class themselves. Until more information arises and a more clened up article is presented, it should remain Start class. Seeing as Saw is the highest grossing horror franchise in history (including inflation) and it has been recognized in popular culture endless times, it does earn a Mid importance rating. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Total Gross

There is no evidence, nor is there a source to state what the projected amount is. This information should either be removed, or a source provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samyueru (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism by someone who still does not properly understand Wikipedia policy. It has been reverted. And thank you for noticing and bringing it to the talk page. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1233227/board/nest/147322632?p=1 here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigkiller3836 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDb isn't a reliable source, and its forums are especially unreliable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Aww :] But I'm flattered that someone wanted to use my thread as a source. Better luck next time, huh? POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

hey can someone tell me why you guys will post there is new posters but none of the three trailers are posted here ?

The infomation to be edited takes time. k. (Twilightnewman (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)) Yeah umm the fil is planned to make 19.6 million on the 2nd day of the opening so ummm.... don;t need a source just wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigkiller3836 (talk • contribs) 14:45, September 18, 2009

The posters are on the article, and this is not a picturebook. And as for claims about what the "fil" will make, please give it a rest. If you aren't here to improve the article then then go elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Second synopsis

I read somewhere (not a forum, an actual source), that the box that Jill got contained incriminating information on Hoffman, which puts them in pursuit of him. This causes Hoffman to kidnap Erickson and put him in a trap to subside suspicion on Hoffman. Can anyone find a source for that? It may have been removed since I can't find it anymore. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ANSWERS & SPOILERS - BEWARE!!! That's half true. The box contains 6 tests that John wants carried out, one of which is on Hoffman, also a package that is dropped through a door mail-slot by Jill to an unknown person, the contents of which are also unknown. However, Erickson is not kidnapped, nor is he put in a trap. I won't ruin it by saying more. Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.146.89 (talk • contribs) 14:27, October 24, 2009

This is not a forum. Please don't use it as such. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jon Mack

Jon Mack's character's name is "Jane". --OkayDock (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Source? --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't have the link anymore. It was an interview with Keven (Director). --OkayDock (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tanedra Howard's Charecter name

Well from what I saw on he Wiki page her characters name is Simone. Look for your selves Tanedra Howard --Spiderman2351 (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Spiderman2351

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source to itself. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Greutert stated it on the House of Jigsaw forum, I'll see if I can find it... TR-BT (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I tink that information came from her IMDb article. "Simone" has been listed since filming stopped months ago. Who knows who added it, could have been Tanedra herself or some people working on Saw 6. We'll find in 2 weeks. :) --Micwa (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The official Facebook of Saw just posted pics of Tanedra and Peter's characters and lists them as "Simone" and "William" respectively. Go ahead and update article? --Micwa (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware FaceBook and the like were reliable these days. I thought it was supposed to be reliable secondary sources. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. Facebook isn't a reliable source AFAIK, but since this is the official one, I'm not really sure... My vote would be to err on the side of caution and wait until we have an actual reliable source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The movie will be out in a matter of weeks, we'll know for certain by then. For now, the page will be plagued within the days to come, I believe we should gather to make sure this page stays to current or better quality, with reliable sources. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In one week time all will be revealed. I promise you I am seeing it next Friday and I will add the pertinent details. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, so much for that. I don't think the names are made up, and I'm sure you all don't either. But I understand how Wikipedia must be strict on such things. We wouldn't want false information to riddle Wikipeida. Also, doesn't matter, they probably die anyways and will never be mentioned again. So much for Tandara's "break out role". (No, I do not not have a source on that, that's merely my opinion. Thank you.) --Micwa (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I discovered it is officially that her name is Simone.Jamesbanesmith (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has discovered it but Wikipeida. DO NOT ADD IT until 10/22 --Micwa (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is slightly off topic, but I noticed that the "Casting" section of the article was written in present tense, with said actress being mentioned as unknown for who she will play. --Dpsaves (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Other cast member

I learned that George Newbern has joined the cast as Harold. Coincidentally, Cary Elwes (Saw), Scott Patterson (Saw IV, Saw V), and Newbern were all part of the DCAU: Elwes voiced Paxton Powers in Batman Beyond, Patterson voiced King Faraday in Justice League Unlimited, and Newbern voiced Superman in Justice League, Justice League Unlimited and an episode of Static Shock. Did you know that?

That might mean George Newbern will have a spectacular death Nico92400 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For those who already seen the film, what role does Harold play in this movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.46.105 (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is who I think it is, he plays out in the twist ending. ;) --Micwa (talk)

Nope, he's a guy who was denied insurance coverage by William. He is barely shown in the film, although his family plays a decent role because of him. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Runtime

Just wondering, does anyone know what the Runtime for this movie is? I looked on www.empiretheatres.com, and they say 120 minutes, but other sites say 90 minutes. Could someone please clarify it for me? Thanks. Queen kitten (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, i don't but 90 is the runtime with 2 less or more minutes Nico92400 (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's 93 minutes guy's [[1]] Whatever you do don't put this in the main page Okay (Twilightnewman (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

The BBFC says 90m 10 seconds, and that is based on 4112ft and 14 frames of film. Darrenhusted (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That fine stay at 93 minutes I just needed to show this, Also Saw V is not 92 minutes it's 88. (Twilightnewman (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

90 minutes is correct. Benatfleshofthestars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.146.89 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot

Can I suggest that the plot NOT be written in full until the 23rd? --Micwa (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for spoiler alerts or something? No. See WP:SPOILER (and maybe WP:NOTCENSORED) if that's your concern. Having said that, the Plot section should be updated once we actually have something worth writing there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia no longer uses the spoiler tags. I remember last year I was checking the Saw 5 page on the 23rd (for vandalism) and accidentally started reading the plot. lol I don't remember a spoiler tag being used then either. I just will not look at this page tomorrow. :) --Micwa (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I just went over the plot and revised some glaring errors. I added a spoiler tag too, but I'm wasn't sure how it should be formatted so I just took one I'd seen before. --Dpsaves (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've removed your spoiler tag, per WP:SPOILER. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

John did not know that Amanda was responsible for the loss of the baby. The letter threatened to tell him of it if she didn't kill Lynn. That part of the synopsis needs to be changed. Also, it mentions that Hoffman gets out of the reverse beartrap, but doesn't mention that the whole right side of his face is ripped off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itswhatiam (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Then make whatever changes are necessary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are still MAJOR errors in the plot summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlingreen23 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, okay. I haven't seen the movie so I can't say one way or the other. If you see errors, though, go ahead and fix them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and someone thought it would be cute to say Dr. Gordon was in it. Nope, not this year. Although he was mentioned. :) I fixed some errors, such as when Hoffman kills Agent Perez and he asked "Who else knows" (about him) and she says "Everybody knows", not "we all knew".

It may be safe to say that some political messages were brought up, about health care insurance current is (the policies), etc. ::: There's a lot of stuff that could be mentioned though.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micwa (talk • contribs) 15:22, October 23, 2009

Um, mentioning politics like that without the movie directly stating so might be a violation of WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But John does, that's mostly what Saw 6 is about. John (and others) got denied health insurance because a preexisting condition. John himself states what hey thinks about the current health care, not me. :P You haven't seen the movie? Doesn't all this spoil it? --Micwa (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure it does, but I don't really care about spoiling the film; I actually have no plans to see it. As to the health insurance thing, we can state what happens in the film, but it would be OR to say, "The writers included health insurance because of the current debate in America." or something like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some details from the first trap that aren't mentioned, like that the man and woman are coworkers at a predatory lending facility, and that the obese man is slicing off pieces of his belly fat to move his scale. Maybe someone could mention that Hoffman and the woman have an exchange in the hospital a little later, where it appears that she learned nothing from the experience after being asked by Hoffman if she learned anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwither01 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh is it nesscsary to put the actor's name beside the character in the plot? That's what the Cast section is for. I already changed it once... --Micwa (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

With a large cast it clarifies who is who. And you don't need a cast section if all the actors are mentioned next to characters, look at the new Halloween film article. Or look at the Fight Club article where cast members are in the plot summary and in a cast section. Horses for courses. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to editors for Saw VI page.

There are people posting that Dr. Gordon is in the film, Which is a big lie Please be sure if anything with Dr. Gordon in the plot is Removed. (Twilightnewman (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Yes, Dr. Gordon is only briefly mentioned by John speaking with William about his health. It doesn't even merit being mentioned in the plot, it is not relevant. ANYTHING about Dr. Gordon should be removed, IMO. Although his character page may be updated about it. --Micwa (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a section in the plot of Gordon's fate then the ending's last shot was of Gordon these Users must not to be messing with this page most of all Wikipedia it's self they can be banned. (Twilightnewman (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Please, somebody, remove Dr. Gordon from the main summary of the film. It is a lie and misleading to others. Can somebody change the summary to remove Dr. Gordon from the final sentence, ending the summary at "Hoffman screaming at the rooftop"? (Thatkrazyguyukno

 Done. Yes, I already did it per your other request further up the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I have just edited the reception again. The usual way to right reception from rotten tomatoes in to simply say that the film currently has a (%) 'Fresh/Rotten' rating based on (no. of reviews). There is no need to add 'North American and selected International critics' because depending on the country you live in, reviews are displayed differently. In America you will see American reviews first and international reviews last. In Australia its the other way around. Please leave the page as it is, it is currently the same as almost all other Rotten Tomatoes references.User talk:Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, October 24, 2009.

No, that's false. Take a look at some FA class articles, like 300. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true. Here are numerous examples of this from this month alone. Check out these: Capitalism: A Love Story, The Invention of Lying, Whip It, A Serious Man, Where the Wild Things Are and The Stepfather. Also, as Saw VI was released in Australia before any other nation the first reviews released were from Australian critics, including Empire magazine Australia which are on Rotten Tomatoes. While some films may have the reception written the way you have, the majority have the one I have described. User talk:Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.146.89 (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I look to FA class articles. Those are the featured articles, ones that have gone through significant peer review and edit and are considered the best of the film articles. None of the ones you listed are. In this case quality should trump quantity. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[[2]] The Film Has Made 14.8 million and is made on $11 million view your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Gordon or not?

Okay, I'm seriously tired of people adding the Gordon text in. I don't care what it says on IMDb, the forums there are not reliable. Can someone settle whether or not he was in the film? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He's not. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the film and he is absolutely NOT in the film. Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.146.89 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He is not in the film. He is only briefly mentioned during a flashback when John is talking to William. John pretty much says he feels that Dr. Gordon didn't care about him, he was always in a hurry. Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which does not qualify him for a spot in the Cast section. If we did, we would have to include every film that mentioned him or showed his "Dr Lawrence Gordon, M.D." sign outside his office which would mean almost every film. No go. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Curious: Who added him in the cast? If it was done, it was vandalism. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Box Office.

I Have A Source It Made 7 Million on Friday.

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/paranormal-activity-scares-up-friday-crown-saw-vi-scares-away-audiences-vampires-assistant-cant-scare-up-viewers/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost banned in Spain?

Is health care so bad in Spain or why is this film only allowed in 8 theaters? Ive never heard this happen to any other horror film getting this treatment in Spain. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because of the heavy gore that Saw VI has. Ever more than the rest of the series. Not because of health care... --Micwa (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats very strange because ive seen much more violent horror films being OK:ed in Spain with a normal 18 rating (Martyrs, Frontiers) and 2.Spain's heavy anti censorship laws only surpassed by the Nordic countries even bigger hatred for censorship than Spain's 3.Many on imdb.com (Also in many independent reviews) have said that the GORE is OK, nothing over the top or anything. 4.I believe that Spain have issues with the films strong message about health care and NOT gore but of course they will say it was because of gore. 6. It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes. Posted by Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Take it elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. (This is the talk page, not the main article page) In addition, please bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles (Exactly what im doing). I also found a link that proved that health care is a total disaster in Spain here: http://www.spainexpat.com/spain/information/healthcare_and_insurance_in_spain/ So no wonder why Saw 6 is almost banned in Spain. Posted by Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet, you have not provided a source that this is the cause of Saw VI getting an "X" rating in Spain. Until such reliable source is available, further discussion should cease. Thank you. --Micwa (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There will most likely never be one link either (Read link above about why that is) so yeah just say its "too gory", while even the most brutal gory horror films like Frontiers and Martyrs are OK:ed just like that in Spain. Spaniards are not stupid, dont you think the message the film has is a bit too close to home for some Spaniards? BTW most has said that the gore in SAW 6 is normal (For the type of film). A film thats almost banned in Spain? Now thats news! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew someone was going to go this route. You can either find reliable, sourced material supporting the thought that Saw VI was banned for that reason, or if you can't, it's a non-issue. This isn't a soap box; this isn't a place for speculation. It's a place to talk about improving THIS ARTICLE. Mizunori Mizunori (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Traps/Scenes

In the plot need to be edited a little better thank you (Twilightnewman (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Plot Similarity to 'Travelers Insurance Company'

I thought it would be interesting to note in this article the connection between the fictional insurance company in the film called, "Umbrella Insurance", with the real life (and current largest insurance firm in the world) insurance company called The Travelers Company. Traveler's logo is a red UMBRELLA, and their slogan for years has been "Life under the Travelers' Umbrella". Travelers has been accused of denying 2/3 of its applicants just as the company "Umbrella Insurance" in the film was also accused of the exact same fact. Just thought this might be an interesting addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.8.59 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So Umbrella in a way exists for real? I thought the film makers were making fun out of the very popular Resident evil video games and films and the UMBRELLA CORPORATION which are in the games/films. Kinda ironic that the UMBRELLA CORPORATION is involved in health care in the games/films as well! Thank goodness that the right ones were tortured to death this time around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Grade

How do we get someone to do an assessment score and grade this article? I think it's one of the best of the Saw films. Thanks. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, I can tell you that this is article is no higher than a B, and it's probably closer to a C. The whole production section is a mess, the plot section might be too long, and there's nothing really special about it in general. Take a look at Category:FA-Class film articles to see the best of the film articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Well I knew it wasn't a masterpiece, but I know it deserves more than a "start class". I was told that someone should come around and let us know what we can do to take it to the next level, once they reach the "S"'s. ;-) But I do believe it IS the best written/detailed of the Saw articles (excluding the franchise and the game articles). Oh and to get to FA, we have to work up to that, I don't think we can just automatically make it a FA, without going through the B or GA route. About the plot. Yes the film is only 90 minutes long -- but the whole story is quite complex and requires a pretty good amount of explaining for people to understand. I think most people come to Wikipedia to read the plot when they don't understand something in the movie. Therefore, I believe it should be fairly detailed. IMO. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 19:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we're not going straight to FA. If you want a reassessment, you might want to post on the talk page of one of the associated projects. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added to the list of assessment reviews. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)