Talk:Jigsaw (2017 film)

Sequel

I figure I should mention this, but as of now, we don't know if the film is a sequel or reboot. That's why the article simply says that it's the "eighth installment of the franchise". Obviously, it will be eventually announced whether or not the film is a sequel to Saw 3D, so please do not add "sequel" without a citation to a reliable source. DarkKnight2149 01:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it obviously won't be announced if it's a sequel or not. Was Saw IV announced as a midquel? Jon Cor is supposed to return and the way the producers talk about it doesn't look like it's anything else but a sequel. And please don't talk about reliable sources. Lionsgate has not touched on the subject officially. All we have is a bunch of articles from various sites. If you really sticked to your values, you would have advocated for deletion. --2.245.172.50 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Saw IV was announced as a sequel. This is a film made several years later after another film called The Final Chapter. Jon Cor isn't official.

"Don't talk about reliable sources..." - That's not how this site works.

"Advocated for deletion..." Why? DarkKnight2149 20:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the argument that hard to follow? Granted, I missed a word last time. The article should be deleted until Lionsgate promotes the film, confirming its very existence. We have nothing official as of right now, therefore nothing is reliable. The websites are just copying each other. Based on this, it is just ridiculous to argue about film details included in this article in order to make the page as clean as possible according to the Wikipedia principle of reliable sourcing when it has already been violated. It's certainly not worth the traffic the article gets. --188.99.186.160 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

At this point, there's little question that this film is happening. Multiple sources (including The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, and Variety, which are leading news outlets) have reported on it, multiple sites have given their own scoops on it, it has a release date and an official MPAA rating, we have an entire cast and crew, composer Charlie Clouser has come out and said it's happening, and if this were all a ruse, someone would have undoubtedly said something by now given how far this has come. So unless Lionsgate says it's not happening (which they won't), then there isn't any reason to remove the article. The official website will also be added to "External links" when it's up. DarkKnight2149 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Tobin Bell also just acknowledged the film on Twitter. DarkKnight2149 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Gregg Hoffman?

This page has Gregg Hoffman listed as one of the producers. However, his Wikipedia page states he died in 2005. Has there been a mistake on this page or his page? Helper201 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that says he's producing, so that's what we have to go by. I agree that it does seem a bit strange. DarkKnight2149 19:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There you go with your "reliable sources". Don't you see any problems with these? They are just writers paid to write articles on stuff they don't care, so they don't verify everything themselves. Although I think he has been credited in later films, he is deceased for sure and can't be really acting as a producer. --188.99.186.160 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and this was coming straight from Variety (not just any website). However, because he's dead, I did compromise by letting another user remove it from the "Production" section (though it's still in the Infobox and should remain that way unless he isn't credited in the film itself).

Bare in mind that I didn't create the policies or guidelines regarding this sort of thing. I just try to follow them to the best of my ability, like most experienced users. DarkKnight2149 21:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Shut up now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.85.214 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, let's remain civil. Second, do you have anything to contradict this? Gregg Hoffman was credited as a producer in Saw IV, V, VI, and VII, and Variety, Deadline, and Entertainment Weekly (among other sources) have all directly stated that he is again "producing" the new Jigsaw film (Read it for yourself: [1], [2], [3]). DarkKnight2149 13:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Gregg Hoffman did in fact die in 2005, but has posthumously credited as producer on every Saw sequel, including this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.240.37 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is why he is mentioned in the infobox, rather than the main text. DarkKnight2149 00:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw 8

Any more proof for the changed name? --88.65.121.110 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

We were going the official Motion Picture Association of America listing. But if you want even more proof, this just dropped. I appreciate your concern. DarkKnight2149 16:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Tobin Bell's credit

I've been told to "find a reliable source or stop edit warring". By that logic, shouldn't the entire plot summary be removed as well? There's no reliable source for that either. But because it's what actually happens on-screen, no one is objecting to it. Why doesn't that apply here?

The film itself is the source. Unless I'm expected to find an article or interview that specifically mentions the fact that Tobin Bell gets an on-screen credit, which isn't going to happen because in what circumstances would such a thing exist to begin with. If Variety released an article tomorrow saying that Donald Trump was part of the cast, would that be added too? What's in the actual film should trump (no pun intended) any pre-release sources where these things are A. subject to change B. possibly intentional misdirection from the filmmakers. This very example may well be a case of B. - stating that Bell is uncredited makes it more of a surprise when he actually appears in person. If he were just in the movie as a voiceover role then it would be more believable that he would not be credited.

When does this end? When do we stop including wrong information in the article? The Blu-ray release? Do we need to wait for the most stringent editors of this page to see the movie and read the damn credits themselves? I'm sure once the likes of the user I've quoted above actually does so there will be no need for any of this "reliable source" pantomime - they'll just go ahead and edit accordingly.

This might come across as a little aggressive, but what the hey. There's only so many times I can accept getting penalised for removing false info. TR-BT (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@TR-BT: The entire plot section doesn't contradict a reliable third party source (let alone the director himself). As I have mentioned earlier, take a look at WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:CS. It's not a question of what is right or wrong (or what you may believe to be right or wrong). It's a question of verifiability, which Wikipedia is built on. If you can find a more recent reliable source (keyword being "reliable", don't use IMDB, another Wiki, or any other shady website) to prove that he is in the credits, then please do it. If you can find such a source that proves what you are saying, not only do I want you to do so, but I am asking you to do so. By all means, use it if you have it. Otherwise, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

"If Variety released an article tomorrow saying that Donald Trump was part of the cast, would that be added too?" - If it wasn't a joke article, then yeah. It would probably get mentioned as long as it wasn't contradicted by other sources or the filmmakers themselves. Remember, I don't control how Wikipedia works. This is all in place for a reason. If we were allowed to just make whatever claims we wanted without some kind of order in place, Wikipedia would be much worse than it might be considered now.

"When does this end? When do we stop including wrong information in the article? The Blu-ray release?" - If you are considering (and I'm not saying you are) vandalising Wikipedia to make a point, that would be disruptive. Please don't.

"There's only so many times I can accept getting penalised for removing false info." - You were only reverted. You generally won't be penalised for making good faith edits, but you can be sanctioned for edit warring. DarkKnight2149 02:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: There's no polite way for me to say this, but this is ridiculous. The easiest way to do this would be to include the information that the director said Bell was uncredited, but is credited in the final product. The credits of the film trump all other sources, that's how it's always been and it's the most logical. It's why Mad Max 2 isn't called The Road Warrior, and it's why The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has "chainsaw" as two words. The film credits Tobin Bell, it isn't up for dispute. Including that he is uncredited is outright inaccurate information, and the fact that you're arguing to keep incorrect info is not only counter-productive, but absurd. Sock (tock talk) 05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And now I've actually looked at the EW source and I'm even more irritated. The source says that the directors wouldn't confirm if he was in the film, because of course they wouldn't back in July. They say absolutely nothing about him being credited or not, because they're explicitly denying an answer, one way or the other, if he's even in the film. I'm reverting this baseless and inaccurately sourced claim now, because the one article you're using as a crutch for your argument doesn't even say what you're claiming it says unless you squint at it with your glasses off in a rain storm. Sock (tock talk) 05:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sock: If you revert again before this discussion has concluded, I am reporting you for edit warring. Use the Talk Page. Secondly, the source blatantly says "Bell’s character actually died in Saw III, and the actor is not listed in the official credits." The only question was whether or not he would appear. No more dishonesty, please. If he is listed in the credits, then find a source that says so. We don't just take your word for it. DarkKnight2149 05:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't be serious. He wasn't listed in the official credits because, again, this was back in July (three months before release) and they weren't confirming if he was even in the film. The fact that you can take the people who've viewed the film's word for what happens in it but not that it credits Bell is genuine nonsense. The article doesn't even quote the directors in saying he isn't listed in the credits, simply that he wasn't listed in July of 2017, because again, of course he wasn't. He was supposed to be a surprise. The directors did not say "Tobin Bell appears in the film, but he isn't credited" which is what you seem to have gotten from that. The directors actually didn't say anything, Entertainment Weekly's Clark Collis did. I'll admit that I shouldn't have reverted again, and I apologize for doing so, but I am not being dishonest. You are extracting information that doesn't exist from a very strange reading of words. It's a throwaway sentence acknowledging that Bell was unconfirmed to appear, not that he was uncredited. Those are not the same thing at all, but it's being treated like it is. And if you're going to point a dishonesty finger, you yourself said "doesn't contradict a reliable third party source (let alone the director himself)", where not only are their two directors, but neither of them made any comment about Bell's crediting. The fact that seeing the film is enough to add a plot summary but not to enough to contradict an off handed note about an unconfirmed appearance that's been misread is a level of frustration I honestly haven't faced since I joined this site. I also think we need to post this to WT:FILM and get outside opinions, or it's just going to be us in an echo chamber. Sock (tock talk) 13:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU. This is a farce. And DarkKnight, you refer to "this discussion" as if it's all nice and democratic but all you've actually done so far is threaten to report anyone who isn't being as obtuse as you. TR-BT (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

We have a source that says Tobin Bell isn't in the credits (that's not WP:SYN or "a strange reading of words"; the source literally flat out says this - "the actor is not listed in the official credits."). In contrast, we have no source that says he is in the credits. It's as simple as that. If everyone saw Tobin Bell's name in the credits, then surely there is a source that actually confirms this. You can speculate about why Entertainment Weekly said this after they had interview with the directors all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a reliable source and we aren't. It's all a matter of verifiability at this point. Third party sources trump stray observations.

@TR-BT: No, I threatened to report you for edit warring. And as I mentioned earlier, I didn't put this system into place, nor am I setting out to prove a point. We simply need a more recent source that says he's in the credits. DarkKnight2149 16:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

First off, I mostly limit my Wiki activities to cleanup and anti-vandalism, so please excuse my not knowing if any of these are reliable - the film's Fandago cast and crew page has Tobin Bell listed as a cast member, this one references the Bloody Disgusting article that says Tobin Bell is in the film, and [variety.com/2017/film/reviews/jigsaw-review-tobin-bell-1202600173/ Variety's review] also confirms his presence. Would any of these be a reliable enough source to remove the "uncredited" note? NekoKatsun (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@NekoKatsun: @Sock: @TR-BT: If this matches the cast list in the film, then I think it should be 100% acceptable to use as a source to remove the "uncredited" note. It was never a question of whether or not he was in the film, but a question of verifiability. This probably solves the issue.. DarkKnight2149 18:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! I've gone ahead and added that ref to the page, removing 'uncredited' as I did so. Thank you! NekoKatsun (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

I would remove "appears to die" from the sentence that talks about the 5 people and the buzz saw trap, since that tends to let the reader know that they really aren't dead, and ruins the twist of the film. I would change it to "and is pulled into the buzz saws." Kippermand (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid removing "appears to die" would make the sentence grammatically inconsistent.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request on 1/11/2017

Somebody keeps adding in that this movie had the lowest debut in the franchise which is factually wrong, Saw 6 had the lowest opening debut with 14.1 Million. Check the Saw 6 wiki page itself for citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fliesrule (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fliesrule: My apologies, but other Wikis are not reliable sources. Unfortunately, neither are IMDB, ComicBookMovie.com, MoviePilot.Com, or any website that pretty much everyone can edit. DarkKnight2149 17:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sequel

http://bloody-disgusting.com/topnews/3477468/jigsaws-games-arent-yet-exclusive/--Kevin Dewitt ^{Always ping} 22:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That page is no longer working. Carrie 94 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Ryan

In every cast list for each Saw film, there is a link to each article for each character within the cast list. I am unable to link Ryan (from Jigsaw) to the Jigsaw cast list under List of Saw characters because of Ryan (from Saw 3D). Could someone fix this issue (on the main page for Jigsaw) and correctly link Ryan (from Jigsaw) to the correct place in List of Saw characters?

Carrie 94 (talk)

Changing Vocabulary of "Plot" Section

Hello,

I recently made a change to the plot section. The last usage of "reveal" was changed to "divulged" so as to broaden the vocabulary of the plot section and steer it away from using "reveal" as often. This change hopefully fits well, though I understand the original usage of "reveal" as it is easily understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadden Communications (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Official Site

This is a dead link now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.102.143 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)