Talk:Saw IV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.99.215 (talk • contribs).
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)
- 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)
- Lionsgate said that Saw IV is being made. This is almost more detail than Star Trek XI. --myselfalso 15:54, 1 November 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)
- 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)
-
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)
- Elitism is bad, indeed. Vegetaman 03:10, 8 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Actually IMDB is actually listing it now as in production. --Zoiks 13:02, 4 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)
That wouldn't merit a page, because there wouldn't be enough information to actually support itself. Bignole 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
- 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- ...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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Movie Facts So Far
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)
[edit] ? 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)
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)
[edit] 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)