Talk:Saw VI

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)

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 these 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)

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)

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