History Headscratchers / SawIV

** [[Fridge brilliance Think about it.]] Which cop states that Amanda is an accomplice? Of course, it's [[HiddenVillain Hoffman]]. He's a fellow accomplice but the two share a bitter rivalry. Whether or not he thinks she'll make it out of the test involving the Denlons, he sure as hell doesn't mind fucking her over if John is going to be dead soon anyway. As a lead detective investigating the crimes, ''and'' a co-conspirator, he's well placed to influence the overall investigation over towards Amanda as a suspect, using a convenient trail of breadcrumbs, at whichever opportune moment he wanted to before this scene indicates to the audience (even if only on a rewatch) that he's stabbing her in the back.

** Think about it. Which cop states that Amanda is an accomplice? Of course, its [[HiddenVillain Hoffman]]. He's a fellow accomplice but the two share a bitter rivalry. Whether or not he thinks she'll make it out of the test involving the Denlons, he sure as hell doesn't mind fucking her over if John is going to be dead soon anyway. As a lead detective investigating the crimes, ''and'' a co-conspirator, he's well placed to influence the overall investigation over towards Amanda as a suspect, using a convenient trail of breadcrumbs, at whichever opportune moment he wanted to before this scene indicates to the audience (even if only on a rewatch) that he's stabbing her in the back.

** Think about it. Which cop states that Amanda is an accomplice? Of course, its [[HiddenVillain Hoffman]]. He's a fellow accomplice but the two share a bitter rivalry. Whether or not he thinks she'll make it out of the test involving the Denlons, he sure as hell doesn't mind fucking her over if John is going to be dead soon anyway. As a lead detective investigating the crimes, ''and'' a co-conspirator, he's well placed to influence the overall investigation over towards Amanda as a suspect at whichever opportune moment he wanted to before this scene indicates to the audience (even if only on a rewatch) that he's stabbing her in the back.

''Headscratchers/SawI'' | ''Headscratchers/SawII'' | ''Headscratchers/SawIII'' | '''''Saw IV''''' | ''Headscratchers/SawV'' | ''Headscratchers/SawVI'' | ''Headscratchers/Saw3D'' | ''Headscratchers/{{Jigsaw}}'' | ''[[Headscratchers/Spiral2021 Spiral]]''-]]]]]

''Headscratchers/SawI'' | ''Headscratchers/SawII'' | ''Headscratchers/SawIII'' | '''''Saw IV''''' | ''Headscratchers/SawV'' | ''Headscratchers/SawVI'' | ''Headscratchers/Saw3D'' | ''Headscratchers/{{Jigsaw}}''-]]]]]

* [[Headscratchers/{{Saw}} Main franchise]]
* ''Headscratchers/SawI''
* ''Headscratchers/SawII''
* ''Headscratchers/SawIII''
* ''Headscratchers/SawV''
* ''Headscratchers/SawVI''
* ''Headscratchers/Saw3D''
* ''Headscratchers/{{Jigsaw}}''

* Why does the hair trap in ''Saw IV'' have a timer? Was it really necessary?

** There's solid logic to the film's fragmented narrative. Like ''Saw II'', it splits the plot into two separate chronologies, though it was less obvious in ''Saw IV'''s case. When Rigg's test begins, the viewer watches him try to solve Jigsaw's puzzles. After each test, which results in the death of whoever Rigg tried to save, the narrative shifts to Strahm and Perez investigating those murders, and then back to Rigg again. Again, like ''Saw II'', near the movie's end, it begins to explain the chronology of the narrative shifts. Rigg's test starts around the same time as Jeff's final test (from ''Saw III'') after he killed Jigsaw. Not too confused yet, right? Okay, now when Strahm/Perez closed in on the same warehouse, some time had to pass before the investigation started (between several hours or even an entire day, though it's tough to guess with the movie's screwy chronology). Then, once viewers see Rigg fail the final test (which kills Detective Matthews with two ice blocks), we realize Detective Hoffman was behind Rigg's test. After that, the movie flashes back to ''Saw IV'''s opening scene with the autopsy done on Jigsaw's body, and Hoffman grabbing the tape from Jigsaw's stomach. Chronologically, that scene happened last, not first as viewers originally assumed.
*** On the one hand, this was a very brave, atypical approach to making more ''Saw'' sequels [[RetCon without severely damaging the mythology]]. On the other hand, this approach confused ''many'' viewers (especially non-fans), largely because of how subtle and non-distinctive these details are. It also doesn't help if you, like several others, [[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132626/board/nest/166324389 couldn't tell Strahm and Hoffman apart]]. Even if you figured out everything above without help (Rotten Tomatoes forums helped me out ''greatly''), it's impossible not to think the overall plan was [[GambitRoulette extremely convoluted]]. Think too hard about everything, and it makes your head hurt.

* One of the series' traps involves two men bound to a winch. Guy A has his eyes sewn shut, and guy B his mouth, theoretically to "prevent communication". Did nobody consider that A could still ask yes/no questions and get meaningful responses from B? Are they really that shortsighted?
** Why would A ask yes or no questions? He doesn't know the other guy's mouth is sewn shut. He also has no idea what's going on around him - so no reason to ask or talk to begin with.
*** Me again. Does he have to have an idea what's going on? He should feel right away that he's being restrained, for one. Odds are that he'd be able to hear the other guy breathing, which in most people would cue "Who's there?" or the like. Any response from B would tip A off that B can't talk for some reason -- why doesn't matter.
*** That also bugged me. I was confused as to how A couldn't just say (once he had the general idea that B couldn't talk) "do some action that produces sound so many times for yes, so many times for no, and so many times for I dunno." Then they could work together to get out of there.

*** Well they didnt even make any effort to communicate, and even if the other guy wasn't responding, you'd think if the response to your call was "mmf, mmf" coming from the other guy, you would suspect something is up.

** It actually bugged me that the guy with his mouth shut didn't force his mouth open to speak and try to find a way out together. Yes, it would hurt like hell, but it would be a lot easier than the other guy forcing his ''eyelids'' open, it'd probably save them and ''he actually did it after he killed to other guy anyway''.
* In ''Saw IV'' what was up with all the MindScrew transfers between scenes? A guy breaks a window and suddenly it shatters into a door and suddenly we're in another area? My friends were getting frustrated by it and eventually screaming at the TV "Stop it!" They never did that in the first three movies. Why try something annoying and awkward like that now?

** There's solid logic to the film's fragmented narrative. Like ''Saw II'', it splits the plot into two separate chronologies, though it was less obvious in ''Saw IV'''s case. When Rigg's test begins, the viewer watches him try to solve Jigsaw's puzzles. After each test, which results in the death of whoever Rigg tried to save, the narrative shifts to Detective Strahm and Agent Perez investigating those murders, and then back to Rigg again. Again, like ''Saw II'', near the movie's end, it begins to explain the chronology of the narrative shifts. Rigg's test starts around the same time as Jeff's final test (from ''Saw III'') after he killed Jigsaw. Not too confused yet, right? Okay, now when Strahm/Perez closed in on the same warehouse, some time had to pass before the investigation started (between several hours or even an entire day, though it's tough to guess with the movie's screwy chronology). Then, once viewers see Rigg fail the final test (which kills Detective Matthews with two ice blocks), we realize Detective Hoffman was behind Rigg's test. After that, the movie flashes back to ''Saw IV's'' opening scene with the autopsy done on Jigsaw's body, and Hoffman grabbing the tape from Jigsaw's stomach. Chronologically, that scene happened last, not first as viewers originally assumed.
*** On the one hand, this was a very brave, atypical approach to making more ''Saw'' sequels [[RetCon without severely damaging the mythology]]. On the other hand, this approach confused ''many'' viewers (especially non-fans), largely because of how subtle and non-distinctive these details are. It also doesn't help if you, like several others, [[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132626/board/nest/166324389 couldn't tell Detectives Strahm and Hoffman apart]]. Even if you figured out everything above without help (rottentomatoes forums helped me out ''greatly''), it's impossible not to think the overall plan was [[GambitRoulette extremely convoluted]]. Think too hard about everything, and it makes your head hurt.

** Actually they used screwy scene transitions like that in the first couple of movies. In "Saw 2" Detective Matthews appeared to walk from his hotel room onto the first crime scene.

** There's solid logic to ''Saw IV'''s fragmented narrative. Like ''Saw II'', ''Saw IV'' splits into two separate chronologies, though it was less obvious in ''IV'''s case. When Rigg's test begins, the viewer watches him try to solve Jigsaw's puzzles. After each test, which results in the death of whoever Rigg tried to save, the narrative shifts to Detective Strahm and Agent Perez investigating those murders, and then back to Rigg again. Again, like ''Saw II'', near the movie's end, it begins to explain the chronology of the narrative shifts. Rigg's test starts around the same time as Jeff's final test (from ''Saw III'') after he killed Jigsaw. Not too confused yet, right? Okay, now when Strahm/Perez closed in on the same warehouse, some time had to pass before the investigation started (between several hours or even an entire day, though it's tough to guess with the movie's screwy chronology). Then, once viewers see Rigg fail the final test (which kills Detective Matthews with two ice blocks), we realize Detective Hoffman was behind Rigg's test. After that, the movie flashes back to ''Saw IV's'' opening scene with the autopsy done on Jigsaw's body, and Hoffman grabbing the tape from Jigsaw's stomach. Chronologically, that scene happened last, not first as viewers originally assumed.

** There's solid logic to ''Saw IV's'' fragmented narrative. Like ''Saw II'', ''Saw IV'' splits into two separate chronologies, though it was less obvious in ''IV's'' case. When Rigg's test begins, the viewer watches him try to solve Jigsaw's puzzles. After each test, which results in the death of whoever Rigg tried to save, the narrative shifts to Detective Strahm and Agent Perez investigating those murders, and then back to Rigg again. Again, like ''Saw II'', near the movie's end, it begins to explain the chronology of the narrative shifts. Rigg's test starts around the same time as Jeff's final test (from ''Saw III'') after he killed Jigsaw. Not too confused yet, right? Okay, now when Strahm/Perez closed in on the same warehouse, some time had to pass before the investigation started (between several hours or even an entire day, though it's tough to guess with the movie's screwy chronology). Then, once viewers see Rigg fail the final test (which kills Detective Matthews with two ice blocks), we realize Detective Hoffman was behind Rigg's test. After that, the movie flashes back to ''Saw IV's'' opening scene with the autopsy done on Jigsaw's body, and Hoffman grabbing the tape from Jigsaw's stomach. Chronologically, that scene happened last, not first as viewers originally assumed.