Talk:Saw (2003 film)

Category

Is it right that this is called "2003 film" but included in the category 2004 films (together with Saw itself) ? -- Beardo 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?

If this was a 9.5 minute 2003 film, than how is the following sentence possible?

It was created from a scene that they chose from the script of Saw (2004).

The Dude 4 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you don't understand that sentence. It's a film that's nine in a half minutes long [9.5], and it was released in the year 2003. ARBlackwood 08:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Saw was made into a 2004 film after the short was made.--CyberGhostface 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And the Script for Saw (2004 film) was already written. This short was made to promote it and make the full Saw film. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Are these titles a pun on:

Are these titles a pun on: seen, scene, seesaw, as well as hacksaw, hack??

< http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0387564 >;

< http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0495241 >.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not a pun on anything. I believe the title came from the hacksaws Lawrence and Adam had in the 2004 film, but I could be wrong. It's definitely not a pun though. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jigsawpuppet.JPG

Image:Jigsawpuppet.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging

This is a little ridiculous, but the discussion for merge, which can be found here, has been going on for a little over a year now, and I am the only one to contribute to the discussion in that whole time. I don't wish to break policy, but since the article has vastly improved since its merge nomination, I feel it is a "Keeper" article, and the merge discussion should end. Agreements? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article is too big to merge into the Saw franchise article, IMO. KEEP. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Paralized Victum

the paralized victum was credited as "Body" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.121.194 (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep Saw (2004 film) at its current title. No consensus on whether to rename Saw (2003 film). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Saw (2003 film) → Saw (short film)
• Saw (2004 film) → Saw (film)

– The 2003 production was under ten minutes, and clearly constitutes a short film, which is a different class of production from the full-length films that are generally title with "film" in our articles. I think that this is a principled distinction by which we can avoid the question of whether the widely released 2004 hit film is the primary topic of the term "Saw (film)". bd2412 T 15:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Readers searching for "Saw (film)" are most likely searching for the 2004 film, and the current titles imply a misleading level of parity. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. The year qualifier is enough to diambig the two films. The 2004 film should not be moved to simply "film", as there is more than one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I take a bit of issue with using NCF as a defense in this case. I'm neutral in this argument, but I feel like NCF isn't clear as to works derived from short films. It's undeniable that the 2004 film is the primary topic, but its source material is the 2003 short. I feel like this area is muddily defined. Perhaps this issue should be addressed on the NCF page, as well. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't agree with moving a clearly disambiguated title to an ambiguous title, which Saw (film) is. Also, as Lugnuts alludes, the Saw (film) isn't necessarily associated with just the first Saw film; there are loads of them and Saw (film) could apply to any of them or collectively in a general sense. It is better off directed to Saw (franchise). Betty Logan (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Saw (film) really ambiguous, though? Is a ten minute "short film" really a film, in the sense that anyone would normally think of it? bd2412 T 11:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if Saw (film) is more associated with the first feature film than any of the others or the short, I don't see what advantage it holds over Saw (2004 film) as a title. As per WP:PRECISE, disambiguated titles should ideally unambiguously define the topic of the article, which Saw (film) doesn't fully do. Betty Logan (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

How would you feel about redirecting Saw (film) to Saw (2004 film), then? As of now, it points to a disambiguation page with lots of other meanings of "saw". bd2412 T 12:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose 2004 move. The short film is still a film, so the 2004 film should not be located at ambiguous disambiguation WP:NCF ; and "(film)" should not redirect to the 2004 film either, as said above, the entire franchise would be a better target than the first film, so leave it as a disambiguation page link. A film franchise is a film topic. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. I agree with the nom. The 2004 film is the primary topic, and there's a difference between a short film and a film. — Status (talk · contribs) 05:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the article is the primary topic for Saw (film), it is indisputably the primary topic for Saw (2004 film), so the primary topic argument isn't really an effective discriminant for choosing between titles in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support the first, oppose the second but redirect Saw (film) to the 2004 one. Helps readers without having an ambiguous qualifier. Red Slash 04:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. We don't have a tiered naming system; there is no primary topic for a disambiguated title. See Titanic (1997 film), Independence Day (1996 film).BOVINEBOY2008 13:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.