Talk:Insidious (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The alarm didn't triggers when the mystery man attack Renai, it was before that, when Josh was sleep in the same bed as Renai. It was after somebody knock on the front door very loudly, when Josh go down to answer it, nobody was there. Then after, the alarm was trigger, and Josh after telling Renai to bring the children to Dalton's room, went down to find the door open, he going around search for the intruder when alarm was trigger second, just when he was to turn off the alarm, Renai who went to the baby's room to take the baby when she saw a face facing in on the window. She scream. Josh come out the see what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candygirlz2005 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Astra192e, 3 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There's no such thing as "astro-project." It's "astral projection."

Astra192e (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Guitarmasterpwn. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Budget on Insidious was remarkable which should be added to the article

What I like about this movie is that there are no expensive actors ripping off the film set and taking all the money. This film was done with $1.5 million budget and it was fun to watch. If you have seen Sucker Punch last week, that cost $80 million, again no expensive actors in that film but how did Sucker Punch cost so much money and Insidious didn't? Insidious is good and with a low budject I would of figured it was around $10 million to make because it was good quality. I like films that do well on low budgets especially without expensive ripoff actors. I thank the directors, writers and producers on making this film they did a fine job. It is clever on some of the sceens and film look was well done which I believe was shot on a Red One camera. --24.205.236.249 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I comppletely agree that Insidious was remarkable in the sense they were able to make this film with a full production for under $1,5000,000.00 or $1.5 million. Yes movies do have big budgets and actors are a big payout on the raise of price cost on these films that I agree is a problem in Hollywood refuses to fix but give big pay raises. Insidious had decent special effects and decent directing to give it the character it needs for a limited budget. The story of astral projection the way they told it made more sense watching this film about outter body experiences and the movie got better and better relating to the matter. The end seems like there will be a sequel though - hopefully they can do the same on a small budget to make a point that low budget movies can reflect the industry these films can be made and are just as entertaining.--Globalstatus (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To who those concern my comments here are to reply to the discussion on Insidious budget on the film, this can be discussed to improve the article how they made a film on a extremely low budject. How they were able to write this movie and script it and produce it on the small budget they had should be addressed in the article. I want to add this in the article which I will provide verified sources to make this discussion part of the article. Film budget. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE!.--Globalstatus (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please keep it focused on how it pertains to improving the article. The above has no bearing on that and is just fan chatter. Millahnna (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary additions

An experienced editor should take control of this article. I feel that the plot summary has grown out of control from IP edits. Mjpresson (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is way too much petty detail. It is supposed to be a summary, not a detailed narration. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very, very common with film articles (85-90% of edits are probably done to the plot). It's done mostly by IPs or new editors that have not read WP:FILMPLOT, which states plots should be between 400-700 words. Or you have some that fight that consensus and claims the plot is missing "important" details. Maybe an old plot summary could be retrieved from an older revision? —Mike Allen 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Millahnna has done good edits yesterday and today which greatly reduced the size back to 800wds, and perhaps will continue. --Mjpresson (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the version of the plot before the IP jumped in. As I still haven't had a chance to see this yet, I don't know if there are, in fact, helpful details that are left out of that version. I did a quick read of both the IP's version and the shorter one to see if there was anything that was more clear to me; I figure as a person who hasn't seen the film I should have a good eye for that. Nothing jumped out at me so I went with the revert. But if anyone spots anything that the IP had included in the long version that would be helpful to include, please do worm it back in there. Millahnna (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw callback

Is it worth mentioning the Saw puppet randomly appearing on the blackboard at one point in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.72.78 (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No per the above conversation that you should have read. Mjpresson (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you can get that info from imdb Killemall22 (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]