# Talk:Saw (film)

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Michod, David (March 2004). "Cover story: The Sundance kids". Inside Film (63): 32–35.
(Leigh Whannell, James Wan and Stacey Testro write about making SAW.)
Walker, Sarah (September 2004). "Heavy metal girl". Fangoria (236): 49. ISSN 0164-2111.
(Shawnee Smith talks about her experiences making SAW.)
Osmond, Andrew (December 2004). "Saw". Sight & Sound. 14 (12): 62–63. ISSN 0037-4806.
Salamoff, Paul J.; Bond, Jeff (December 2004). "In Review". Cinefantastique. 36 (6): 54–55. ISSN 0145-6032.
Gingold, Michael (2005). "DVD dungeon". Fangoria (241): 70. ISSN 0164-2111.
Trbic, Boris (April 2005). "The Low-Budget Australian Horror Film". Metro (144): 44–48. ISSN 0312-2654.
(A discussion of Australian low-budget horror film and its place in the global commercial arena, taking as an example, the success of the Hollywood film SAW and how it resurrected the low-budget feature in the USA.)
Bond, Jeff (November 2005). "Chopping Block". Cinefantastique. 37 (8): 12–13. ISSN 0145-6032.
(Peter Block on producing SAW.)
Mitchell, Peter (December 2005). "Leigh Whannell". Inside Film (83): 16.
(Scripwriter Leigh Whannell comments on the box-office success of SAW, working on its sequel SAW II and new project SILENCE.)

How can this be an American Horror film when the principle authors are Australian (or based in Australia) and the production company is Canadian? And while Canada is in America, the American Horror link goes to the USA Cinema page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.20.3 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 

Probably because it was released in the US first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It is an American production, because it was financed by American producers, and was made in the US.  The sequels were made in Canada. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Because Wan himself calls it an American film as it was financed by American dollars. This is now clarified in the article. —Mike Allen  02:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm against placing the genres lead as "psychological thriller". I understand how directors and writers view their own work, but I think it should be focused on third-party sources to decide it's genres. When promoting films, filmmakers and directors sometimes do not use certain terms which can carry negative notations (horror for example). Several third party sources refer to it as a horror film:

Film Threat "To be rivaled only by the indie thriller Open Water, “Saw” may be the best independent horror film to have come out since The Blair Witch Project." source
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "'Saw' is an ingenious cut above any other horror film of modern" source
Noted horror film expert Kim Newman in Empire "As good an all-out, non-camp horror movie as we’ve had lately." source
San Francisco Chronicle: "Saw: Horror.", "Director Wan and his co-writer Whannell show a heartlessness essential to a hardcore horror film.", "
source 

Allrovi "Genre: Horror, Sadistic horror" [1]
I'm not against removing it as a category, but a film maker can call a film any genre they want, it doesn't necessarily make it so. If Saw is a comedy to them, it doesn't make it so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point.  When revamping this article I tried to make the content as correct as possible, thus going by what the writer and producer classify the film as. But I understand that's not the foundation of Wikipedia which is why I'm not going to debate it.  I've changed it to a "horror" film. —Mike Allen  04:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding. When I was working on the articles for House and Eyes Without a Face a came upon the same problem. The director and star of Eyes don't like calling it a horror film and the director and writer of House thought of it as more of a fantasy. Of course, all critics and other sources predominantly say horror. Happens I guess! Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saw (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

Very minor prose issue such as "The script was optioned by a producer in Sydney for year but".  Assuming it is missing an a between "for" and "year" in funding section.
"(who soon after formed Twisted Pictures)."  Soon after what?  Before the film was finished or picked up?
Remove wikilink to 'photographer', 'shotgun', and 'poison' in plot as obvious terms.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold while prose issues are dealt with.  Also won't affect it passing but maybe consider adding an image or more to the cast section just to balance it out a little aesthetically, looks a little awkward as some cast have detailed info and others do not.  An image of Bell or Smith would probably look good there but either way, this won't affect it passing.
I've taken care of the issues, take a look. Thanks. —Mike Allen  00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Was this film influenced by The Cube series which also has a group of people trapped in a strange environment and facing unknown death traps? (178.236.117.122 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC))

The plot section has many mistakes and malformed sentences. I think it's in need of a rewrite Dummies102 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL, this comment was from seven years ago, so I'm guessing it won't happen, but the plot summary is basically incoherent. There are a bunch of bad parts, but the best example is this sentence: "When Gordon's wife calls him at gunpoint warning him not to trust Adam, the latter admits that he was paid by Tapp to spy on him and showed the photos he took from the bag containing the hacksaws; revealing his knowledge of Gordon's affair with one of his medical students whom he had visited the night he was abducted and the reason he is being tested." ...What? I haven't seen the movie (why I was here reading a plot summary), so I can't fix it, but this needs work badly. 174.86.30.121 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)MOB

I think the film should be listed as a psychological thriller. First, the creators intended it to be one. Second, many reviews believe it to be one. Ebert called it a "thriller," the AMC site that is linked in this article calls it a "psychological thriller." Third, the film arguably is a psychological thriller (though I don't think it's such a great example). The best proof of this is the scene at the end when the doctor goes a little nuts and cuts his leg off and shoots the other guy.
Anyway, it was discussed above that it shouldn't be listed as a psychological thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a horror, but I don't see how one precludes the other, especially given that the "Psychological thriller" page says, "Psychological thrillers often incorporate elements of mystery, drama, and horror, particularly psychological horror." (Perhaps it should be classified as a psychological horror? That seems the most accurate to me.) I think when it is not so clear as in this case, we shouldn't rely on our on opinions but on those of the creators and the professional reviewers, who seem to think it is a psychological thriller.
And if it is not going to be listed as one, then I don't see why it is included in the "Psychological thriller series" at the bottom of the page.--Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This section is dated but just to clear this up due to some people's general misunderstanding of how film genres work - movies are often more than just one genre, hence why psychological thriller is included in the categories. Saw is partially a psychological thriller but not primarily, so it isn't in the lead. The creator of The Exorcist also didn't intend for it to be a horror film and calls it a religious drama/supernatural thriller but that doesn't make it not a horror film. "it was discussed above that it shouldn't be listed as a psychological thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a horror" why should it be listed as a thriller because *some* reviews listed it as a thriller? Ebert listed the film as "Horror, Thriller" and refers to it as BOTH a horror film and a thriller in his review. "professional reviewers, who seem to think it is a psychological thriller" the majority of professional reviewers consider Saw to be a horror film. Clearly not just a horror film but it is primarily a horror film. "The best proof of this is the scene at the end when the doctor goes a little nuts and cuts his leg off and shoots the other guy." That isn't psychological thriller, that's psychological horror. Also, the majority of the metacritic professional reviews call it a horror film (about 6 or 7 call it horror, 3 call it thriller). --FollowTheSigns (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Saw (2003 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)