Talk:Insidious (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plot order

The alarm didn't triggers when the mystery man attack Renai, it was before that, when Josh was sleep in the same bed as Renai. It was after somebody knock on the front door very loudly, when Josh go down to answer it, nobody was there. Then after, the alarm was trigger, and Josh after telling Renai to bring the children to Dalton's room, went down to find the door open, he going around search for the intruder when alarm was trigger second, just when he was to turn off the alarm, Renai who went to the baby's room to take the baby when she saw a face facing in on the window. She scream. Josh come out the see what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candygirlz2005 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Astra192e, 3 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There's no such thing as "astro-project." It's "astral projection."

Astra192e (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Guitarmasterpwn. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Budget on Insidious was remarkable which should be added to the article

What I like about this movie is that there are no expensive actors ripping off the film set and taking all the money. This film was done with $1.5 million budget and it was fun to watch. If you have seen Sucker Punch last week, that cost $80 million, again no expensive actors in that film but how did Sucker Punch cost so much money and Insidious didn't? Insidious is good and with a low budject I would of figured it was around $10 million to make because it was good quality. I like films that do well on low budgets especially without expensive ripoff actors. I thank the directors, writers and producers on making this film they did a fine job. It is clever on some of the sceens and film look was well done which I believe was shot on a Red One camera. --24.205.236.249 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I comppletely agree that Insidious was remarkable in the sense they were able to make this film with a full production for under $1,5000,000.00 or $1.5 million. Yes movies do have big budgets and actors are a big payout on the raise of price cost on these films that I agree is a problem in Hollywood refuses to fix but give big pay raises. Insidious had decent special effects and decent directing to give it the character it needs for a limited budget. The story of astral projection the way they told it made more sense watching this film about outter body experiences and the movie got better and better relating to the matter. The end seems like there will be a sequel though - hopefully they can do the same on a small budget to make a point that low budget movies can reflect the industry these films can be made and are just as entertaining.--Globalstatus (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To who those concern my comments here are to reply to the discussion on Insidious budget on the film, this can be discussed to improve the article how they made a film on a extremely low budject. How they were able to write this movie and script it and produce it on the small budget they had should be addressed in the article. I want to add this in the article which I will provide verified sources to make this discussion part of the article. Film budget. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE!.--Globalstatus (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please keep it focused on how it pertains to improving the article. The above has no bearing on that and is just fan chatter. Millahnna (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary additions

An experienced editor should take control of this article. I feel that the plot summary has grown out of control from IP edits. Mjpresson (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is way too much petty detail. It is supposed to be a summary, not a detailed narration. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very, very common with film articles (85-90% of edits are probably done to the plot). It's done mostly by IPs or new editors that have not read WP:FILMPLOT, which states plots should be between 400-700 words. Or you have some that fight that consensus and claims the plot is missing "important" details. Maybe an old plot summary could be retrieved from an older revision? —Mike Allen 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Millahnna has done good edits yesterday and today which greatly reduced the size back to 800wds, and perhaps will continue. --Mjpresson (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the version of the plot before the IP jumped in. As I still haven't had a chance to see this yet, I don't know if there are, in fact, helpful details that are left out of that version. I did a quick read of both the IP's version and the shorter one to see if there was anything that was more clear to me; I figure as a person who hasn't seen the film I should have a good eye for that. Nothing jumped out at me so I went with the revert. But if anyone spots anything that the IP had included in the long version that would be helpful to include, please do worm it back in there. Millahnna (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw callback

Is it worth mentioning the Saw puppet randomly appearing on the blackboard at one point in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.72.78 (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No per the above conversation that you should have read. Mjpresson (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you can get that info from imdb Killemall22 (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, add it. The more, the better. 108.23.216.206 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Gas Mask

There was no mention of Elise gas mask in the session when they try to talk to Dalton. I was wondering why she used that mask and how's that special. Not sure if that's in scope of this article. What rose my curiosity was that the mask was on figure in Elise dungeon room in the chapter two.

I found this link reasoning why the mask was used: http://livescifi.tv/2011/07/insidious-gas-mask-seance/ Here's the figure pictures on exhibition: http://hollywoodmoviecostumesandprops.blogspot.com/2013/09/scary-costumes-and-props-from-insidious.html --AlFReD-NSH (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release year

It's 2010, not 2011. The article itself shows that it was first screened in September 2010 at the Toronto Film Festival. Kumagoro-42 21:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I fixed it, along with a bunch of other stuff. The article was citing some random blog for the country of origin, used the "publisher=" and "work=" parameters interchangeably in citations, and was missing a citation for a quotation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I changed accordingly on the page for the film series, where the first film was mentioned as released in 2011 pretty much everywhere. At this point, I think we could add a line, both here and in the series page, before "The film was released in theaters on April 1, 2011", to account for the fact that it was first screened in the festival circuit in Fall 2010, otherwise it might be confusing (for instance, the release is still mentioned as 2011 where the box office is concerned, because that's when the film started its commercial run). It would require a reference, though, and I'm not good with those, can you take care of that? Also, in the article about the series, where the summary of the first film is given, is it necessary to say "A sequel, Insidious: Chapter 2, was released on September 13, 2013", when there's the summary for the second film right below? Kumagoro-42 01:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wide theatrical release year should be movie's year, not the first screening(s)! That's common sense and, more importantly, it's applied for all other movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.209.36 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's consensus to go by earliest public release, which is sometimes a film festival. You could raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lambert?

Isn’t Josh Lambert based on this serial killer?

https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/convicted-killers-motions-clog-island-county-court-system/

https://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/accused-killers-mother-blames-drug-use/

https://www.alternet.org/2013/06/did-troubled-teen-rehab-create-murderers/

Just wondering.

2600:8801:E00:760:C9F:8BF3:C817:E13 (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]