Template talk:Saw (franchise)

Kerry – aka "the Jigsaw expert" – in every single SAW movie

Add her. She's been in every single Saw movie so far. Adam hasn't. Dr. Gordon hasn't. Jeff/Lynn haven't. Not even Det. Matthews or Rigg have been in all four movies.

She's a significant character as she's linked back to most of the other characters. She's the "Jigsaw expert" for one. She is linked back to Detectives Sing and Tapp. She was investigating the crime scenes of Mark, Paul and Michael. She has a strong tie to Detective Matthews (she had an affair with him, causing his marriage to break up). She was there during Eric Matthews' first game – she saw all the victims on the monitors in SAW II (that is Addison, Gus, Xavier, Jonas, Laura, Obi, etc). She discovered Daniel in the safe. She had a friendship with Rigg. She was a colleague of Hoffman. She investigated Troy's trap. She was killed by Amanda. The discovery of her corpse was significant. She was in close communication with Strahm and Perez.

She was always a step ahead of everyone else in all four movies. The pen and the peep hole (Jigsaw's voyeurism exposed) in SAW 1. Knowing to be patient and follow Jigsaw's stated rules in SAW 2. Figuring out that traps were inescapable and were not set up by Jigsaw in SAW 3. Knowing that two officers were in danger in Saw 4. AND there is even more that she knew that everyone else doesn't that I predict will come up in Saw 5, most notably her discovery about something "behind a door". The fact that she is dead doesn't mean she won't be of further importance in the future. Jigsaw and Amanda are dead, and I'm sure both will be important in future Saw movies anyhow. In the fictional world of Saw, a character being dead doesn't mean their story is over. This most likely will be true for Kerry as we still don't know everything that she told Perez and Strahm.

Kerry should be on it. Her character is very significant. Obviously.

58.165.211.160 11:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's a supporting character. An important supporting character, but a supporting character nonetheless. We should only have the major protagonists/antagonists on the template. She doesn't even have her own article yet. --CyberGhostface 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's a protagonist if you observe the series as a single whole. On the other hand if you observe the series as a single whole a character like Adam in the end had a minimum impact on the over all plot of the franchise. I'm not saying he should be removed. He should stay. But Kerry is clearly more important than he is. Or Jeff or Lynn or Dr. Gordon for that matter. She should have her own article too now that you mention it. And no, I don't think any other character should have their own article other than Jigsaw, Amanda, Hoffman, Det. Matthews, Rigg and Kerry. The Reinhart family is fine as one but Lawrence and Adam should be merged into one. Kerry has clearly been in it more than let's say Hoffman. And the extent of Hoffman's involvement of being in on it has not yet fully been revealed, it could be less than we may think. Yeldarb68 12:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A protagonist is described as by dictionary.com as "the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work." Kerry was not a leading character of any of the films. Adam (along with Dr. Gordon) was. (And considering his role with Amanda in Saw III, I'd say that he had far from a 'minimum' impact) Jeff and Lynn were the protagonists of Saw III. And while Kerry has been in it more than Hoffman thus far, considering he's signed on for the next two films I'm willing that's subject to change. I mean, what's next, an article for Jill?--CyberGhostface 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that Adam has had more of an impact on the four released movies than Kerry did? Yeah, Amanda killed him. Not that big of a deal. I mean she killed Kerry too, so your argument that Amanda killing Adam makes him more significant than Kerry makes no sense because Amanda killed Kerry too. And this box isn't about protagonists of single movies, but views the series as a whole. Kerry has had more of an impact on the over all series than most of the characters listed here.

And Jill? Ah, resorting to putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about Jill. And there is no "next". Kerry, and Kerry only should be added. And perhaps a couple of the others should be merged- Lawrence and Adam.

Anyway, why is it like I am asking for your permission? Who made you boss?

And look at Rigg's article. It's ridiculous. There is more written about Kerry on the full character list than there is on Rigg in his own article.

And that bit that you inserted about her not being the protagonist of any single one of the films? As I said, stop looking at the films as singular. If you view it as one big gigantic whole she is way more significant than the others listed here.

Yeldarb68 11:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I looked at the films as one cohesive work, I still would not see Kerry as the protagonist. She was a recurring character in the first three films, but that doesn't make her a protagonist. Even if the Saw films were one long movie she still would not be a leading character.
I'm not the one who gave Rigg his own article, so you're taking it up with the wrong person. But he was the lead character in Saw IV.
No one's putting words in your mouth, so stop jumping to conclusions. I only said it was a matter of time before someone makes an article for a minor character such as Jill, since her role (being married to Jigsaw and losing his child) could be seen as more important to his character than some of the others in the series.
BTW, I would advise you to check WP:CIVIL before making your next reply.--CyberGhostface 17:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just look at the facts for a little bit:

1) Kerry has always been listed in this section. Her removal was actually a disruption of the status quo. It was done with little discussion. When others tried to restore the status quo, she was continuously removed with once again little discussion. But it has for a long time been generally accepted that Kerry is a major character whose reference in this section has always been generally accepted.

2) The concept of a 'antagonist' was introduced by you into this section. By no means is or has this ever been stated before, nor has its utilisation truly been brought into discussion before it was enforced as some what indisputable.

3) In any film franchise, there are reoccuring characters that sometimes never eventuated as being 'antagonists' by strict definitions. That does not mean that a reoccuring character cannot be considerably special nor their great impact on the unfolding overall plot as not being noteworthy.

4) Public perceptions do matter. The fact that the character Kerry is so closely associated with Saw is significant. It strikes her as not only a perceived significant aspect of the films, but also for practical purposes, considering this great popularity of hers it would be logical to add her as a link in this section for convenience to the large number of people that would like to access information about the character.

5) Even by the strict new definitions that have all of a sudden been enforced with minimal discussion, there is still no guarantees that Hoffman will be an 'antagonist' in the upcoming Saw sequels. And while there has been talk that Hoffman will appear all the way up to Saw VI, that doesn't mean it is true. There was for example talk that Obi would be in Saw IV, and it ended up that he wasn't. So assuming and speculating that Hoffman might be a 'antagonist' is not up to encyclopedic standards. As of now he is merely a reoccuring character, any more than that is speculation, and this contradicts the change in the status quo, that is Kerry's removal.

6) It is generally accepted by most anyhow that Kerry is the cut-off line. Contrary to the fears that this will make it acceptable to add Jill or which ever other reoccuring minor character who has yet to have as huge an impact on the franchise as Kerry has had, most know and accept that Jill and who ever else has not been in every single Saw movie and is much less iconic to the Saw franchise.

It can therefore be concluded that a return to the status quo should be enforced, in that the character Kerry should be returned to her rightful and justifiable place in this section.

Kind regards, Yeldarb68 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, actually, she has not. There have been long periods of times where she has been absent from the list entirely and it has only been the main protagonists and antagonists.
2. The concept of only having the major protagonists/antagonists was not started by me. I only created and added the articles for Jigsaw and Amanda. Then all the other characters were added from Zep to Sing to even the naked guy in the broken glass. I was not the only one who disagreed with this many characters, and I was actually notified by a couple of users who thought this was simply getting too wieldy. And this isn't a case of 'enforcing rules with minimal discussion'. The only reason why there has been 'minimal' discussion is because this template doesn't have many people coming here.
3. Correct. I just don't see how Kerry had a grand impact on the series when the only time her character had any importance was in Saw II.
4. What do you mean, 'great popularity'? I've noticed quite a bit of Lawrence/Adam fans, Eric fans, and Jigsaw and Amanda fans, but I've never noticed any huge Kerry fans or seen any serious discussion of Kerry.
5. Costas has been signed on for the next two sequels. I find it hard to believe that his role won't be expanded considerably considering his role at the end of Saw IV. There's no 'speculation' here.
6. Who is generally accepting it? Kerry had a very minor role in Saw, a semi-important one in Saw II, was killed off in Saw III's beginning, and had her corpse appear for five minutes in Saw IV.

I'm going to ask some of the other contributors what they think. If they agree with you, you can add Kerry. Does that sound fair?--CyberGhostface 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry if I was wrong on that one, but that was the impression I had. Every other time I came on here her name was listed. But then again, I didn't come here all that often.

2. I just got the impression of that because I only read what was written on this page. I guess I was wrong on that. But if my thoughts seemed overly-presumptious, rude or abrasive, I apologise because that was never my intention.

3. I do feel she did impact on the plot direction greatly. Even after she was already dead- her input still was influential on Strahm and Perez.

4. She has a fan base. Probably not very vocal on this site though.

5. I won't get too deep into that. But I'm not convinced that Hoffman is as significant as we have been led to believe. Neither he or Jigsaw announced him as the official one to take over the psychotic games. For all we have been shown in Saw IV he could have been a forced accomplice. But all this is theorising, and that's not very encyclopedic, so I won't drag this out any further. But I do just get the feeling it may be too soon to assume how important or unimportant he may actually end up being.

6. I haven't heard much opposition to her being here from very many people.

7. Yeah, that does sound incredibly fair. By the way, when I got here as of this time, she has already been listed in this section. I didn't do that because I wouldn't just keep pushing it now that discussion on it is actually going. But it seems she has her own article now too?

Yeldarb68 10:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I asked Jack of Hearts and he agreed with you so he made an article for her. Sorry about the way I acted earlier.--CyberGhostface 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw 4

I added Saw 4 to the template. -24.92.41.95 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't know if its going to be made yet.--CyberGhostface 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a report on now mania.com (formerly cinescape.com) that said that it will be released for Halloween next year[1]. --myselfalso 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Saw IV. When that dispute is resolved, consider the template. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50 1 November 2006 (GMT).

size

I've been trying to keep this template's size down by keeping the names simplified (Adam, Dr. Gordon etc...). I'm just posting here to see if anyone has any objections. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put full names and added some more prominent characters. It's still very small compared to other film boxes. --- Movie Junkie 19:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting a little character-happy here

I still believe that Jigsaw and Amanda are the only characters that really deserve their own articles. I guess the protagonists of each film might deserve one, but with Detective Kerry we are officially crossing the line...Kerry had little more than glorified cameos in each film. If we ever do a 'List of Saw characters' page she should have her own section, but she is not big enough to warrant her own article. Whats next, an article dedicated to Troy?--CyberGhostface 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw how many character pages were created, and I agree its been taken a bit too far. I understand Jigsaw and Amanda's articles to the fullest (they are important and major characters afterall), and the Adam article is pretty justified as he appeared in all films, but the minor characters aren't needed. I think, since they all seem to be nominated for deletion they should be removed from the template. Any objections? -Lindsey8417 10:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None from me. I'm nominating them for deletion right now.--CyberGhostface 13:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what now, they're all back up! Well, all the ones that everyone wanted merged at least. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone...some overzealous editor whose never seen any of the films nominated them for deletion and several other people who also haven't seen the films wanted them gone as well. I think all the major protagonists deserve articles. Minor characters like Xavier and Kerry obviously don't, but I think these should stay for the moment.--CyberGhostface 20:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can understand people like Detective Matthews and Adam Faulkner, but Lawrence Gordon's just a terrible mess of redirects now, and we've got some people re-creating the articles with some people right behind them closing them off again. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fans (the people who actually look at the stuff) are interested in all of the characters. They will stubornly keep doing it. I'm not one of the one who keeps doing it, but all I'm saying is the little elite group who opposes what most fans want will fail. Not character happy. The opposite, in fact. Yeldarb68 07:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a fan site. I suggest you see Wikipedia:Fancruft. What the fans want isn't necessarily what's best for an encyclopedia.--CyberGhostface 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shortening

Could someone who knows more about editing templates possibly try to get the soundtracks and "other" sections onto the same line, like Template:Simpsons characters, to make it shorter? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 12:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should cram two sections onto the same line just yet, unless in the future we get more sections.--CyberGhostface 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Silence

I don't know who added Dead Silence but I've removed it seeing as it has no relevance to the series, only that James Wan created it. Movie Junkie 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Saw series template

Could we make the templetate of the Saw series more like the movie itselfs, (Like: Text, wich match the series, white text on the headlines or different color on the main headline,. ) so it would be more familiar with its article —The preceding --Rutherfordjigsaw 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Rutherfordjigsaw[reply]

If you can make the text easy to read and the font not a copyvio then I don't see why you couldn't.--CyberGhostface 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jigaws/John Clarification

I'm guessing that it's because Jigsaw is the prominent character as we see very little of the side of John. — Movie Junkie 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. What's going on with the size of font?[reply]

Rigg in Character Section

I noticed that Rigg has been added to the box, is he prominent enough to go in the box? — Movie Junkie 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe he should be seeing as he's a central plot point in Saw IV.

 ViperBlade Talk!! 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess he is quite a main character. I was also wondering about Kerry. She's played quite a large role, almost as big as Eric. Shouldn't she be in the box? — MovieJunkie Talk! 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Rigg should go on being that he's going to be (eventually) a major character. As for Kerry, I don't recall her being a major character but I'll hold out for now unless others want to chime in. However, I don't think, barring any additions/changes in Saw IV, that we should add any more characters. I remember before people were trying to add some of the victims from the first Saw.--CyberGhostface 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film dates

As people want the info box to be kept to a minimum, is there any need for the dates of the films? Surely the (short) would be fine for the first Saw, but all the rest just left without dates? — MovieJunkie Talk! 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think we need them.--CyberGhostface 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptation

I know that most people want the box to be kept to a minimum, well I've come up with this:

Category:Saw Category:Film series templates

What do people think? Maybe someone can work some magic and make it half the size (width)? — MovieJunkie Talk! 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saw Category:Film series templates

It could be permanently open? — MovieJunkie Talk! 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with collapsing the template and maybe shortening it but I think the original format is still the best.--CyberGhostface 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fare do's :) — MovieJunkie Talk! 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any good? I definitely think we need it collapsible. — MovieJunkie Talk! 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know more about templates than I do, so I don't know how to do this, but is it possible to make the spaces less wide?--CyberGhostface 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this:

You can change the size by editing the style="width:35%" part. — MovieJunkie Talk! 07:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's perfect. I'll edit it as so, I don't think there will be too many objections. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. Cheers!

 ViperBlade Talk!! 11:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I was able to help :D I personally think it looks more professional now? :D — MovieJunkie Talk! 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

Frankly, I think the template should be only for characters who have their own articles, not characters on the list page. But that's going to contradict what I have to say next, so...

I think *only* the major protagonists of each film and the obvious antagonists should be featured. That would be Lawrence, Adam, Eric, the Reinharts, Rigg (who doesn't even have his article yet, but he was the main character so I'm not going to argue his placement yet), Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman (who will undoubtedly become a major character in the next two films). Kerry was a supporting character for the first three films, but was she ever a major character? I wouldn't classify her in the same level as Eric, who was the protagonist of one film. And Strahm, while important, was not the protagonist of Saw IV...that was Rigg.

I don't want to see the template become cluttered with minor characters. There was once a time where people added the glass victim and the razor wire victim into the box. Lets not let it become as bad as that.--CyberGhostface 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the template shouldn't be cluttered with minor characters, I believe Kerry should be included, as she is a big link in the series, going so far as to lead the FBI to Jigsaw while working behind-the-scenes. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw VI

Why does Saw VI on the template link to Saw IV? Is it an honest typo? I don't don't know anything about Saw, so I won't change it myself. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It links to a section on IV detailing future sequels. We don't have an article about VI yet because it's not in production yet. We probably will get it soon, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Saw VI article exists now, so I'm going to update the link. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters 2.

Now with the majority of the characters re-directed, should we have a list of them which just link to a sub section of another article listed within the box? Such as linking "Lawrence Gordon" to this page when the List of Saw characters page is already linked? --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could remove the redirect characters to make it look less cluttered.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, I mean essentially, this section is the same as the one above. I think that only the characters with their own articles, or at least part of their own, such as the previous Lawrence Gordon page (Gordon family) should be included. But this would mean recreating several articles or just leaving John and Amanda. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Hoffman have his own article?

I think he should now that he is probably on par with John and Amanda. Discuss. Yeldarb68 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman and Strahm articles should be deleted

They should not exist until there are citations and references in place. Yeldarb68 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

picture

why is there a picture of "misty graves" on this template? how does it relate to the movie series? shouldn't a picture of jigsaw's doll be on there instead or something that's actually relatable to the movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section?

I added a cast section on the template, though it was quickly removed. JpGrB said that the reason for the removal was that whatever may be considered 'main cast' or 'cast' is mostly WP:OR. I don't see why this shouldn't be included since other franchise templates list the cast of the films (ex. the Terminator franchise template). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.151.130 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already pretty much identified a main cast by giving some characters their own article, and others not. The actors who played characters with their own article could potentially be put up in a cast section of the template. Ie, Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell, Donnie Wahlberg, and Scott Patterson. And that's it (if characters have an article created for them, or an existing character article is removed, the cast section would reflect such changes. That is, a cast section of the template would be dependent on the character section of the template). What does anyone think? 123.3.178.156 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below

The reason why it's on a different bar is to distinguish it from the rest of the template, making in small is useless and harder to read. You suggested I look at some other templates... {{ERnavigation}}, {{The Sopranos}}, {{The Simpsons}}, that latter being of a featured topic, which {{Michael Jackson}} is also. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 05:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Scarce. It shouldn't be smaller. Also, refer to WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Font size. --Mike Allen 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insidious

Why is Insidious listed in the "related articles" section on this template? I've read the article about Insidious, and there is no mention whatsoever of the Saw franchise (other than this template). -24.125.42.1 (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up. I guess whoever added it thought it was related because that that film and others were directed by James Wan. I've removed it. —Mike Allen 04:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.mania.com/52631.html