Jigsaw's whole philosophy that separates him from his apprentices is that he abhors killing, and doesn't see the devices he places his victims in as murder. Yet he slashes Tapp's throat in a fashion that clearly should have been fatal and leaves a disguised row of mounted shotguns to cover his tracks. Is this just because he's an insane Hypocrite, or is it a legitimate plot hole?
Forgive my lack of understanding of the legal system- but how could Timothy get 6 months in prison, as opposed to a longer sentence, due to lack of witnesses? Either he killed Jeff's son or he didn't. The court would need witnesses to prove it was him who did it but once they'd done that (which they did) what further role could witnesses play in determining his sentence? You'd think Timothy would have gotten a reduced sentence due to lenience or sympathy from Judge Halden. Lack of witnesses just doesn't make sense.
This would depend on how it was seen. The legal system can see it as an accidental death, which would carry a lighter sentence, wreckless driving, drunk driving, hit and run, etc. Without a witness to say if the car was say, speeding or driving erratically, it can be easy to present it as an accident.
First movie, key in the bathtub: why was it there in the first place? As far as I understand, Jigsaw was "punishing" both men, the doctor by threatening his family, and the voyeur by trapping him along with the guy he was snooping on. So what was that for, besides looking like a "very clever" move on the part of the killer?
In the 3rd movie it was revealed, through flashback, that Amanda just tossed the key into the tub haphazardly, instead of putting it wherever it was meant to go.
And yet, Jigsaw knew it at the end. So, why didn't he put it wherever it was meant to go?
A test for Amanda, most likely.
It was a final torture that they could have freed themselves at any time.
Except they couldn't because, you know, the key was in the bathtub, which would be drained when the voyeur woke up, and the key would be lost with the water. Oh, wait, it was exactly what happened wasn't it? Seriously, that was my point from start.
Considering that Jigsaw was pretending to be dead but knew that the key had been in the bathtub, one has to assume that it was supposed to be in there. However since the bathtub was set up to drain the moment that Adam woke up, THERE WAS NO WAY FOR HIM TO WIN. The key would be drained unless he, for some reason, reached around the bathtub before getting up, which he would have no reason to do. Which makes his sermon at Amanda for making his games unwinnable in the later film just a tiny bit hypocritical.
For all his criticism of Amanda, his games are nigh unwinnable anyway: who's going to be able to successfully remove their eyeball, and then use the key embedded in the socket to unlock a steel trap from their head in a matter of seconds without, you know, being too distracted by the agonizing pain? In his twisted mind, he probably did expect Adam to have the presence of mind to search his surroundings before rising up from the tub, and the key going down the drain was Adam's punishment for not being more careful (or alternately, maybe he was just too distracted with the self-drugging to notice that the key wasn't in its right spot - although, Saw 3 aside, it seemed like he was well aware that the key's no longer be accessible to Adam).
And for all this talk of how smart Jigsaw is, he seems remarkably idiotic in this instance if he was trying to teach Adam to be more careful of his surroundings. If you know someone doesn't check their surroundings, then having the key go down the plug hole isn't "teaching them a lesson", if they now have no real way of escaping the scenario and putting that lesson into practise. It's like deliberately running over and killing a jaywalker: they won't make the same mistake again, but they haven't learn a lesson about looking before they cross, either.
Its perfectly possible that, for all his rhetoric, he is simple a vengeful sadist out to settle some scores by torturing and humiliating his victims and make them know what power he has over their lives- in other words, it wasn't idiocy, it was Jigsaw being an asshole.
Actually, Jigsaw told Amanda to tie the key around Adam's ankle, but Amanda wouldn't have any of that and just threw the key in, almost guaranteeing Adam's failure. This flashback in Saw III was to show that Amanda was a straight-up murderer right from the very beginning. Of course, Amanda's later actions towards Adam would confirm this.
If that was the case, the key makes even less sense. Had it been tied to his ankle, he would have found it immediately, turning a can't-win into a can't-lose scenario. Regardless of Jigsaw's intentions, there's no way the key is fair play.
Also in the first movie, if Jiggy was lying on the floor, alive, the whole time, how did neither of them notice he was breathing?
Similarly, if Jigsaw was on the floor, then who was causing Dr. Gordon and Adam to be electrocuted through their chains? Did Zepp do that? Because there is never any indication in the film that he was responsible...
The end of the movie shows Jigsaw using the zapper on them in order for him to escape leaving them behind. It could have been they were just too involved in their predicament to notice any (very slight) movement from him after they've already dismissed him for dead.
In Saw III it shows Jiggy injecting himself with, as loosely quoted by the zombie himself, something that will "slow the heartrate" which extends to slowing breathing. And by the time it wears off, both men would be too frantic to even bother to acknowledge the body in the middle of the room anyway
Neither of them was close enough to even touch the body's outstretched fingertips. Seeing him breathing would've been fairly hard from that distance, particularly if the drug made him do so very shallowly.
Why oh why did the executives have to push for Saw IV, V, and the inevitable VI? Saw V was just awful and uninventive. Not to mention that Jigsaw winning as a twist has already gotten way too old.
Duh! Because there are people who will pay to see these movies anyway! It doesn't have to be good. It just has to make money.
To be fair, unlike other franchises of this ilk, they are trying to have a somewhat coherent plot. It might not seem like it, but the writer's attempts are there.
And Saw VI turned out pretty well all around. Whether this continues, well...it's Hollywood.
I don't mean to sound dismissive of the entire series, but...doesn't Jigsaw realize just how hypocritical he is? Now, I know he's dying from inoperable brain cancer (which somehow was created through colon cancer...huh? What, did he literally have his head up his ass to contract it?), and his psychosis may not allow him to see it, and there is that deleted scene in the third movie where he realizes on his death bed that maybe he isn't the savior of humanity he thought he was, but...for someone who's trying to make people "live their life to their potential" and force them to realize how they're wasting it through their perceived vices (including social and personal stagnation), he's surprisingly blind by those same vices developing in him via his own obsession with his "games". Considering he was already a skilled craftsman, and he learned several other skills during his run as a killer, he surely could've done something better with his life. Has there been a canonical point in his past story where he looked at his work, stepped back, and went "Wow, I have issues. Maybe this isn't such a good idea, after all..."?
Minor point, but if a cancer has major access to a patient's bloodstream, it can spread practically anywhere with a little luck. Getting brain cancer as a secondary from an internal organ cancer isn't unheard of.
To go with this; Colon cancer is one of the cancers that sends secondaries to brains quite (relatively) commonly. Cancer doesn't have to spread by direct contact with the primary.
He claims he want to make people "live their life to their potential"... by placing most of them in inescapable death traps. Do you have any doubt the guy is a hypocrite?
Glad I'm not the only one to see how stupid this character is. I mean, if he gave them more chances, maybe even put them in non-lethal (just seemingly from a stand point) situations, he'd be more sympathetic. Otherwise, he's just a murderer who doesn't directly kill his victims.
Really, the answer is in the first troper's assessment. He has an inoperable frontal lobe tumor eating away at his brain. His morality center is likely swiss cheese. He doesn't think like a normal human being, and is in fact lucky he even got that moment of rationality in Saw III's deleted scene. The series makes a lot more sense that while he may have incredible fortune when it comes to remaining high-functioning, John Kramer is completely, irreversibly insane.
His personal epiphany came when he nearly killed himself, so his cancer-fucked brain decided other people needed that brush with death to figure it out. As to the "inescapable" label, enough people survived his traps to form a support group by the final film. It's more likely that his being an engineer and not a doctor meant that he simply didn't quite realize exactly how fragile humans can be.
For that matter, given how many painkillers he's been on during his cancer treatments and how much his tumor had damaged his brain, he may have lost sight of just how crippling pain can be to an undrugged, neurologically-sound human being.
Were the main characters in the first movie being watched by one of "Jigsaw's" victims (Saw) or Amanda (Saw III?)?
Why did they not do things like:
Cutting through the rusty hollow pipes? It's difficult to accept the "saws couldn't cut the metal" theory because Hacksaws were specifically designed to cut through metal as hard as galvanized steel. They are used by mechanics and construction workers for the SOLE PURPOSE of quickly cutting screws, bolts, nails, pipes and chains, of all things. Even the crappiest hacksaws cut through metal far easier than cutting through, you know, a FOOT. If anything, the hacksaw would break if you tried to cut through flesh and bone, because softer materials grab the blade. The blade is very narrow and flexible because it is supposed to "give" a little when cutting through very hard, rigid materials.
Attempting to use the broken saw blade to pick the padlock?
Because that's probably impossible.
Placing the chains in freezing water until they became brittle?
Placing the chains in boiling water until they expanded and became thinner?
Rattling the chains and screaming (if help is close enough to crawl to, it should be able to hear this?)?
Flooding the room until the water pressure was greater then the tensile pressure of the door?
Having the doctor pretend to die with both feet on the ground so that he would be grounded when he was electrocuted?
How were they going to boil or freeze the water, or get it to flood the room? And they tried cutting through the pipes.
And is boiling or freezing water even going to make an appreciable difference on chains that size?
Did they? I know they tried cutting through the chains...
I just watched the film for the second time, and the characters do not attempt to cut through the pipes.
Many people don't tend to think rationally in those situations, with all the adrenaline rushing. They're probably thing, "OMG! OMG! OMG! I'm gonna die!!!" We can see the rational way out of this, cause we're not the ones chained up and told we were gonna die. That's total Mind Screw.
Oh, c'mon. What moron wouldn't scream for help? Little kids are told that's the thing to do when they're in trouble.
Dr Gordon said he already tried after Adam started screaming for help; the house of people in the second film are probably victims of bystander apathy or they already tried off camera, and the venus fly trap guy had only 30 seconds and called out for help; in the third, the guy tries yelling out dozens of times, and Lynn was with Jiggy himself so there is even less point to call for help; in the forth the main guy didn't need to call out because he was outside a lot of the time and was trying to find someone, and Eric had lost all will to live; and in the fifth someone jumped the gun and set off the series of traps. There's a difference between calling for help in say, the outback when you're stranded, but when you're clearly underground with heavily locked doors, there's no point.
Why the fuck did they not see the electrocution coming? One of them was a doctor, how fucking stupid were they?
Too Dumb to Live. That goes for all of the examples immediately above as well. ("My wrist is caught in a bladed trapdoor, I'll just put my other hand through the other trapdoor! It's foolproof!")
You try analyzing a situation calmly when you're facing imminent death. (Sure, we would like to think that we wouldn't have the Idiot Ball glued to our hands when push comes to shove, but Reality Is Unrealistic, after all.)
A better question is why they think that cheesy performance by Adam would convince anyone.
Especially when they didn't know what symptoms would be associated with the poison in question.
Well, it's not as if they had a chance to rehearse and see just how cheesy it would be.
Why would they even have electrocution to consider? I mean, the last thing on my mind after realizing I'm chained up in a nasty bathroom would be whether or not I'm also in danger of getting zapped.
In the first movie, the cops won't shoot (the guy they think is) Jigsaw, because he has information and they don't want to kill him. As a result, he's able to get away. But "shoot to kill" and "don't shoot at all" aren't the only options. Why don't they just shoot him in the leg? Or at least try to?
Fiction has led you astray. There is no "safe" part of the body to shoot someone in, and another problem, too.
I know it's not all as easy as it sounds, but... still. At certain points they're at pretty close range. If they shot very low, one would think, they would have a large chance of missing him entirely, a decent-ish chance of hitting his foot, and a pretty small chance of killing him. Which would arguably be better than a 100% chance of him getting away. But of course, this could be completely wrong.
Well, wrong yes, and wrong no. It's possible potentially... but any responsibly gun owner knows that you don't point your gun at anything you aren't trying to destroy (See I Shot Marvin In The Head) because it's not really all that easy to shoot to wound - there are major arteries in the leg, after all, and maiming usually isn't something police are want to do. More than that, police aren't allowed to shoot unless there is an immediate threat to life - someone holding a gun isn't enough reason to shoot. Only if they show intent to harm another or themselves or have actually shot at someone, then is an officer allowed to shoot. And then, officers need to be aware of what's behind the target - shooting into a crowd is bad even if you have a clear shot and the bad guy is shooting at you - if the bullet passes through the target, it can retain enough energy to do harm to whatever (or whomever) is behind it. Of course, as the next troper mentioned, all this is why tasers, beanbag shotguns, and other less-than-lethal weapons are more common place than TV would have you believe... so officers -can- shoot at people and take them down without maiming and killing them.
The real question is where were all the tasers and beanbag shotguns?
Many major city police departments (e.g. San Francisco) do not issue tasers for a variety of reasons (lack of budget for deployment/training, potential danger to the person shot (because it's so much better to shoot someone with a gun that's going to hurt or kill them than a taser that has a chance to harm them), potential for lawsuits, etc.). This occasionally leads to situations such as a drunk waving a knife around being shot and killed. Attempts to aim for a "less lethal" shot don't seem to even be considered. On the other side many police officers seem to frequently use tasers more as a compliance device (i.e. not doing what they say and/or not doing it as quickly as they want you to) such as in the infamous "don't tase me bro" and UCLA library incidents and don't always seem to see as much use to disarm a dangerous suspect.
Exactly why does everyone in the movie (and some fans) believe that Jigsaw can't be punished because he "never kills anyone"? He designs the death traps (which, considering how many times each of his hideouts have been ransacked by the police, those designs should be in the authorities' hands by now), kidnaps his targets, and even videotapes them while talking to them through the video feed. Seriously, does no one seem to understand how the concept of premeditated murder works in a court of law?
For reals. Jigsaw more or less puts a gun to people's heads and tells them to jump off of a cliff. Murder, kidnapping, assault, battery, reckless endangerment, conspiracy to commit murder (once Amanda comes into the picture), etc.
Do any of the characters actually say this? Even Jigsaw, who thinks he shouldn't be culpable, surely isn't dumb enough to think he really isn't. And Eric Matthews makes no bones about it in Saw II: "Putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pull the trigger is still murder."
In Saw, Dr. Gordon states that Jigsaw is not "technically" a murderer. Especially ironic since later in the movie, we see one of the cops die, as a result of one of Jigsaw's traps. If somebody dies as a result of you trying to protect your home, you're a killer. Plain and simple.
In fairness, he was referring to the tabloid's moniker 'Jigsaw Killer' rather than whether he was actually a murderer or not.
Well, we didn't exactly get to see Jigsaw put to trial. After all, TECHNICALLY Ed Gein wasn't a serial killer - a serial killer needs to have killed three or more people in a period of more than thirty days, Gein was only officially found to have killed two people.
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, look at it like this. If you were chained to something in a room with your eyes sewn shut, wouldn't you immediately think the other person is a threat, somehow, if not completely responsible?
Possibly, but exactly how else are you going to escape? Your only chance is assuming the other guy doesn't want to kill you.
Well they didnt even make any effort to communicate, and even if the other guy wasnt responding, youd think if the response to your call was "mmf, mmf" coming from the other guy, you would suspect something is up
So why didn't the other guy try going "mmf, mmf" in an S-O-S pattern, or otherwise signaling that he was just as much in need of help as the blinded one?
It actually bugged me that the guy with his mouth shut didn't force himself open to speak and try to find a way out together. Yes, it would hurt as 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 the climax of the first movie, Dr. Gordon goes crazy and saws his foot off. Never mind getting the job done with a rusty old saw. The bones in the human leg are extremely hard, and it would take a very long time to cut through it with a saw. Dr. Gordon would be in excruciating pain and I doubt he'd be able to get very deep into his leg, crazy or not. He would probably pass out from blood loss, exhaustion or shock before he even made a dent on the bone, and then die.
Likely true, but don't underestimate the power of adrenaline. People in life-or-death situations have gone far beyond normal human endurance before.
I don't recall where he cut through, but isn't it possible he (being a surgeon) went for the space where there's just ligament BETWEEN hard bones and didn't attempt to cut through bone?
That actually didn't bug me. What did bug me is that: Dr. Gordon- you're a doctor. A SURGEON, in fact. You should know that to minimize damage to the leg and overall blood loss, you should cut BELOW the chains, and then slip the leg through them. Instead, you cut above the chains, more or less guaranteeing that you're going to die. I know, I know, it was a stressful situation, but...
A. He was the one continually telling Adam to calm down and think things through
B. In those kinds of situations, it's the little minutiae that you keep in mind, to distract you from the situation that you're in. I can't help but think that in the several hours he is in that cell, Gordon never recalls that lesson in basic human anatomy.
No "but". He had snapped, convinced that his family was dead. You try keeping your wits about you in that kind of situation. For the whole time in the cell, I don't think they ever considered cutting off their foot as a viable option, and once it was, there was no thinking about it.
For that matter, why wouldn't a surgeon think to amputate part of the foot rather than cut through the leg? Easier to go through the cartilage between tarsals than to transect the tibia, and the arteries would be a lot smaller, reducing blood loss.
Because - as with many of the things listed here - people do not think rationally in utterly horrific situations. It cannot be stressed enough how easy it is to think this all up when you're sitting at a computer in a comfy room with a cold glass of Coke, versus when you've been trapped in a shithole for hours and think your family was just murdered.
Dr. Gordon saws his foot in order to reach the cell phone, which was just a few inches away from his full arm's length. Why did he not use his shirt to bring the phone closer? Don't say they'd be too worried to think for this option, because they had already done it before!
Or just flip the box around and use the empty part to snag the phone. The answer is the same as the one to most of these questions: panic is the antithesis of logic. Perfectly obvious answers are rarely so clear when one is sure that their family is currently being murdered by a madman.
Some, if not most of the death traps could be solved in other than the intended ways. E.g., if there are easily accessible cogs, stuffing something like a shoe or your clothing in there should stop and/or destroy the machine. Yet, all characters seem to be obsessed about solving the puzzles exactly in the "official" way.
Remember that the victims have only minutes, sometimes seconds to do what Jigsaw instructs. If they try something else and it fails, they won't have enough time left.
Some of the traps have no time limit until the person tries to brute-force their way out of it and trigger the timer, like the reverse bear traps. And some of the traps, like the glass box in Saw II and the beaker of acid in Saw III, have an incredibly obvious solution that the person avoids in favor of something that will hurt, a lot, and will most likely make it impossible to solve. The glass box had the girl put her other hand through the other trapdoor when her first hand got caught, instead of trying to free her first hand or using one hand to hold the door open and the other to grab the syringe (she was shown to be an idiot, though, and the "Sarin gas" could be an excuse for the freakout), and even if the person in 3 could see the pour spout on the opposite side of the beaker, the first thing I thought was "Chains... The acid can be poured out away from her" (she even lifts and tips it slightly to get a better vantage point, after running her hands over where the chains are linked to the beaker, so it's not like it couldn't be moved). It makes sense that you can't think of something when you have ten seconds to cut a key out of your skull, but when you're sitting in a chair with a large bladed object strapped to your face, the key phrase would be "careful, planned movements" (not "jump up before you understand your surroundings"), and some of the victims' actions are far from the most intelligent thing I could see, and really, in many cases probably the most dangerous thing possible short of jamming or scraping a key or scalpel or whatever into the carotid artery.
Many of the traps tie into Jigsaw's philosophy of requiring a critical piece in order to make it out alive. Too many people assume it to be a brute force solution of jamming your limbs and body into harmfull places, which is actually self destructive and the antithesis to Jigsaw's ideas. If they had remained calm and hadn't panicked, hard as it is in their predicament, they might have seen the third option that avoids injury and death, with calm being an oft repeated requirement for survival. His victims don't see this and automatically take the most dangerous and nihilistic option immaginable. This is why they are Jigsaw's victims.
I just watched Saw IV again; the message on the scalped lady's tape doesn't say "there's a knife in the cupboard" or anything like that. Jigsaw says that Rigg has the evidence to put her away and what can help her is "under the TV" it doesn't say knife or even a weapon. For all she knows it's blackmail evidence against him or...who knows.
Fair enough. The cop not thinking to, say, break the TV screen or a window and use its glass to cut her hair rather than search an entirely different room for knives was what got to me.
So...Saw VI's scale trap that opens the film. Nevermind the scenario's lack of realism (few people have the nerve to amputate their limbs, let alone do it in under a minute to toss their body parts into a scale, and not kill them from blood loss/shock). Why didn't either of them consider throwing the tools down the chute or their shoes instead of their mutilated limbs/stripped fat? The scale wouldn't have known the difference.
This is taken to new and ridiculous levels in Saw 3D. Specifically, Bobby's final trap with the hooks. There are at least 3 answers better than "shove the hooks into yourself". For the record, these are (1) step into them like they are stirrups, (2) put them under your armpits (3) hook them onto your clothing. The "freak out" excuse doesn't really work here, since he takes a good 15 seconds of his allotted time to talk to his wife, consider what he is about to do, and then do it. Of course, Bobby is shown to be an idiot.
The point with Bobby's final test is that Bobby is the one who absolutely ruins it. Jigsaw hints before he begins that Bobby's trap isn't physically possible and the options above are obviously what any sane person listening to the tape would probably go for, considering that Bobby only made up what would happen in the hook trap before. It's the last one - Bobby's martyring himself to his wife and to everyone else for being such a massive fake, too, but the grand gesture doesn't really work out for him.
Also from Saw 3D... why did the automated gun kill more than one person? As soon as it started shooting, I would think that the natural reaction of any human being, especially a trained cop, would be to hit the deck. Since it can't shoot down, being automated and all, that would have saved everyone but the first guy.
More from Saw 3D:
With the publicist in the fishing hook trap we're told that if the decibel meter registers too high it will automatically trigger the trap before the time limit is up. Ignoring her screaming before the tape is played and the trap is triggered she continues to scream nearly constantly often red-lining the meter yet this never triggers the trap and time simply runs out a few seconds short of safety.
The screaming only speeds up the timer. It doesn't end the trap outright.
While Bobby doesn't have a great deal of time he still has sixty minutes to save his wife and based on the videos he's shown failure at a trap results in her situation worsening (or simply coming off as an average night at a BDSM club). While he doesn't have any clue how many potential victims he'll need to save (only four including his wife and excluding his two traps) he nevertheless starts each tape as soon as he notices it thus starting the trap. He never pauses to try and figure it out or find an alternate solution in advance. Considering that each trap only has a time limit of one minute and he probably doesn't spend that long wandering around he would have had at least fifteen minutes each. Assuming he was trying to rush he would have had a substantial bonus upon reaching his wife and could have afforded to spend more time trying to work it out.
In Saw and Saw II, Jigsaw uses poisons... And estimates, with a fair bit of accuracy, the speed at which they would react (assuming that the characters didn't fall for the other traps) ... Which is problematic, because each person should have more variation on how much time it takes for them to succumb to poisoning. They (the writers) should've factored in weight, fat in the person's body, etc., and secondary symptoms of the poisons. So how does Jigsaw accurately guess that (assuming that he didn't have access to medical records)?
Either it's a poison which attacks specific parts of the body which don't vary much between people (brains, for example) or the time he stated was a minimum or rough estimate. Or he lied.
This isn't really true though... except in Saw III:
Saw - Zep is told it's a "slow acting poison" and to get the antidote he needs to play the game. He is told he will live long enough to finish the game (6 o'clock). There is no indication that he will drop dead at 6:01.
Saw II - There is no explicit time given for how long the gas will take to kill people. The timer throughout the movie is meant to look like that's what it is doing, but it is actually timing something very different. In fact, the different effects on different people aspect is shown with Laura, who dies of the poison well before anyone else, and before she even finds her trap.
Saw III - no poison, but there is the ice shower which has a similar problem. This is the only time that Jigsaw has amazing timing skills in the entire series. How exactly Jigsaw knew exactly when Danica would freeze to death, and that she wouldn't already be dead when Jeff got there, is anyone's guess.
I'm guessing a person can survive rather longer when they're merely exposed to subzero temperatures while naked, so Jigsaw only had to know that much. Danica wasn't subjected to sprays of water until Jeff actually arrived on the scene, and said sprays of water were what actually killed her, and fast, because she was very cold already. Still pretty impressive.
I'm no doctor, but her skin was blue when Jeff first walked into the room. If that doesn't indicate a serious medical condition, I don't know what does. There is no explanation given for how Jigsaw knew her obvious hypothermia wouldn't kill her before Jeff ever walked in.
The whole scene is blue.
Agreed. That said, look at this image (SFW, nudity is cropped out), from before the water sprays start (I think). Compare her to Jeff, standing in the background, and try to tell me that she doesn't need to be in a hospital for acute hypothermia... like... now...
For all we know, the hoses could've been periodically dousing her with warm water to keep her alive until Jeff broke out of his box.
Which would be worse for her than no water at all since whenever the hoses weren't dousing her she'd be soaking wet and in a freezer, which certainly wouldn't keep her alive longer than leaving her dry in the freezer. The constant alternating between warm and freezing cold would probably kill her from shock, and she'd be in agony every time the water hit (have you ever run your hands under even the most lukewarm tap after being out in the cold? It's agony even without hypothermia involved).
Saw IV - Still no poison, but the timer seems to be timing how long it will take the ice block to thaw under Matthew's feet, which Jiggy couldn't possibly know. Of course, that isn't what it's timing at all, so there is no issue.
Actually, ice melts at a fairly consistent rate for a given temperature and pressure.
Saw V and VI have no relevant examples that I can think of.
I can't believe no one asked this question yet but, Where Does He Get All Those Wonderful Toys?? Seriously, those death traps didn't build themselves out of nothing. Jigsaw was merely a civil engineer in his past life so he wasn't exactly Bruce Wayne in terms of wealth.
Actually, the movies do state he is rather wealthy. He even owns several abandoned buildings (which are presumably where the "games" take place). It's also not unlikely that Amanda and Hoffman help him financially.
Of course, him being wealthy undercuts his backstory, which was that he was denied insurance coverage for an experimental treatment. He certainly had enough wealth to have paid for the treatment in cash, all the more so since the treatment did not involve surgery, which is generally more expensive than pure drug treatments. (It was stated that his cancer could not be treated by surgery.)
Kramer explicitly stated he could pay for it, but he was more angry with the principle of not getting the coverage.
Possibly his insurance plan considered the treatment so experimental that buying it outright would've obviated the rest of his coverage, meaning they'd quit paying for his already-ongoing hospital care if he did so.
A lot of the traps' equipment consists of re-purposed materials from his properties, like machinery from old factories. That stuff wouldn't have cost him anything, if it was abandoned along with the sites.
Amanda the junkie and Hoffman the (admittedly often-promoted) cop? eh, maybe... Gordon was a doctor, so there's also that.
The more I think about it, the less Dr. Gordon and Adam's trap makes sense to me:
First, why would Jigsaw trap Gordon anyway? From the clips of his private life we see, he seems pretty respectful of life. The only thing a bit reprehensible he does is THINKING about cheating on his wife, but he cancels the date before it's too late, and if anything, that shows he enjoys life a bit too much. Jigsaw himself gives an awfully vague reason to trap him: "every day you tell patients they will die soon, now it's your turn to end a life." What the Hell?! Is Jigsaw really blaming him for not being able to magically cure patients with terminal diseases? And what about Adam? So yeah, he's a private and as such, he stalks people. Big freaking deal, his job leads either to punishing assholes or cleaning innocent people's image.
I think the point of Doctor Gordon's punishment is basically for being a dick. It's sort of implied (with the whole first scene with Zep) that he's nonchalant about the lives of his patients. Which (especially if you're crazy, like Jigsaw) you can somewhat twist into him being a 'bad person'. But every doctor isn't Patch Adams here, some just kind of get deadened to the emotions that go with oncology. So I'd say that in Jigsaw's mind there is a logical reason Gordon needs to learn a lesson, though not logical by any stretch of the word in reality.
Second, we know that Gordon must kill Adam, but what is Adam supposed to do? Jigsaw never explains it (and Adam isn't here just as part of Gordon's test since he gets a tape as well, meaning he too is being tested). Is he just supposed to escape using the key or the saw? And then is he supposed to help Gordon or leave him to rot? And if Adam escapes early on, does Gordon lose even if he has plenty of time left?
Third, why give them the saws? Okay, maybe one for Adam since it's apparently his secondary mean of escape, but why give Gordon one too since the goal of his game is explicitly to kill Adam?
He had to kill Adam to save his family. That doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have had to free himself too.
And last but not least, why on Earth would Jigsaw put the key to Adam's chain right next to him?! Had Amanda not tossed it in the bathtub, Adam could have just used it and walked away. What is he supposed to learn from that game? Don't forget your keys at home?
If Adam's tape is anything to go by, the point of his test was to change his attitude of watching other people's lives while ignoring his own. With that, it seems like he was meant to pay attention to himself enough to find and use the key. According to material that didn't make it into Saw III, Amanda was supposed to have sabotaged the trap by placing the key on his chest rather than tying it to his neck, and by tying the chain for the stopper to his foot.
Still makes no sense. If you know someone doesn't pay attention, then to make their survival reliant upon them checking their surroundings when waking up under great stress isn't teaching anything or making a point. It's just rubbing their face in it when they fail in the way you expect- "Ha ha, if you'd looked, you'd have escaped. But you didn't, so you'll die". Which isn't what Jigsaw claims to be doing. And if the key had been tied around Adam's neck, he would have noticed it. Even an unobservant person would notice something unusual around their neck, especially if they were looking for something like a key. Or Gordon would have noticed it and mentioned it, hoping Adam would free him too.
Even unchained, they'd still have had to search around for ways to get out of the room.
Just a legal point: Jigsaw says at least once that he's not a murderer, because he gives all his subjects a chance (however slim) to escape. However, there's definitely a crapload of crimes he could be charged with (kidnapping, unlawful detention, etc). Is his statement that he's not a murderer technically correct, or is he just that far out off-plumb?
I'm no law expert (especially not US law since I'm European), but I assume he could still be condemned for endangering other people's lives by putting them in the traps, at least second-degree murder, and definitely for torture. His association with Amanda also makes him an accomplice of a murderer. But either way, I think what he means is that he doesn't consider himself to be a murderer, regardless of what the law says.
Best case scenario, he gets off on "only" a huge numbers of counts of manslaughter. However, he's designing things that are intended to kill people, and leaving them to die unless they do something horrible/self-destructive. I'm pretty sure that American courts would say murder in the 1st degree is an acceptable sentence.
Simple. Jigsaw is insane, and not a lawyer. Aside from that, the first answer is probably correct: He wasn't talking in legal terms, but in how he saw himself.
Well, if he had lived past the first three movies, then he probably would've been caught and tried for all those counts but seeing as how he's insane, he could be put in an insane asylum or under medical care for his cancer or something like that.
Gordon, Jigsaw and some of the cops say that Jigsaw isn't "technically" a murderer. These people are wrong. Murder, as defined in most U.S. states, is "knowingly causing the death of another human being". Jigsaw knowingly put his victims into situations that would result in their deaths if they failed to escape. He put them there, and he thereby caused their deaths. If they fail to escape, it's murder. If they escape, it's attempted murder.
Moreover, every death in a fixed-location trap rates as felony murder, because they're the direct consequence of a felony (kidnapping).
There is a brand of serial killers that doesn't consider himself a murderer: the killer in this case, is, well, killing people BUT doesn't consider himself a killer because he believes he is helping them (easing their pain, ending their suffering, etc.) In Jigsaw's mind, he is helping people appreciate life. So that's not the law or anything, that's just his view of himself.
Where did Jigsaw get the crapton of (presumably) used syringes for the needle trap in 2 and to stuff the toilets with in the video game? I thought maybe the hospital where he was diagnosed with brain cancer, but then I realized that most hospitals lock up the used sharps boxes to prevent cross-contamination.
His wife is helping drug addicts, Amanda was/is a drug addict, Hoffman is a cop. It's not much of stretch to think that one of those three would have been able to get used syringes.
You can buy syringes by the box of a hundred. Faked prescriptions or, even easier, a faked business that happens to include a pharmacy and buy 'em by the case. Used syringes don't look much different from new ones — all you'd need to do is take the protective caps off.
Also, some cities actually have needle and syringe programs where clean ones are provided for free, to lessen the spread of blood-borne diseases and such.
Third movie. Jigsaw said Amanda that she killed 4 victims. They seems to be Adam, Eric, Carrie, and Troy, but in Saw IV it is revealed that Eric was just captured by Amanda, not killed. So who was the 4th victim? Was it Gordon? Could it be possible that after the end of the first movie Amanda found Gordon in the passage outside the room and killed him and this is exactly what Jigsaw was speaking off? Or is someone else is the 4th victim? I don't understand.
Her 'dead' cellmate.
That doesn't make sense because she had to kill him for the game, and she didn't kill him out of mercy (Adam) or as part of the game (Kerry and Troy), she killed him because she had to or she would've died. There was also an unused part of the story where Amanda really did kill Eric but the director took it out. So maybe, that's what Jigsaw meant. I don't know
I just rewatched III, and I don't recall her ever giving a number of victims. She just says "That's right, I'm a murderer" when confronted with what happened to Eric Matthews. She never explicitly says she killed him, though it is heavily implied. That's the Unrated version. The director's cut (which I havn't seen) may have different dialog on one or more of these points.
Jigsaw said that because that's what Leigh and James wrote on the script. Saw III was supposed to be the end, Eric was supposed to die. Infact, Donnie apparently only came back on the condition that his character be ended and was pissed off when he saw that it was't. There was originally a scene showing Amanda returning to Eric and stabbing him in the throat, as someone mentioned above. However, they were made to take it out as one of the edits they made to make Saw IV possible (others include the clip of Jigsaw pouring wax on the tape) so instead they just showed Amanda angrily walk back to Eric after he starts mocking her.
Maybe she didn't know Eric was alive. Amanda and Hoffman both worked for Jigsaw, but not always together; he was the one who set up Eric's final trap after Amanda "left him for dead". And Jigsaw let her think she'd killed him because the intent is what matters.
The actual issue is related to a real-world one, not a plot hole. The original script for Saw III has Amanda outright killing Eric, and apparently the scene was even fully filmed. At the last minute, Lionsgate excs made them cut the scene short on the hopes they could convince Donnie Wahlberg to return for Saw IV. However, because of how last minute the change was, it still says four people instead of three.
I recall Jigsaw saying this right after Amanda shot Lynn. I took this as Jigsaw foreseeing the chain reaction about to ensue and saying that Amanda's decision to shoot Lynn effectively killed 4 people: Amanda and Jigsaw (via Jeff), Lynn (via shotgun collar), and Jeff (via Agent Strahm).
Danica, in the third movie, has never made any sense to me. She is supposedly a witness of the drunk driving accident. She never testified at trial, and never told anyone of authority what she saw. So... how could Jigsaw possibly know that she witnessed the accident?
Jeff knew she saw something and may have tried to contact her. Jigsaw found out.
Saw VI: William is supposed to pick the people who deserve to live, and none of them are male. We have an explanation for Addy and Emily, but we are supposed to think that Shelby is his 'girlfriend'. I mean, I liked the movie, but when in every single trap the women win with such flimsy excuses (come on, Shelby didn't sound one bit friendlier than an employee towards William, which makes me not buy the 'girlfriend' angle) it becomes a) noticeable, b) a blunder on an otherwise enjoyable movie and c) grating. And the character's not supposed to be biased because 'he let Gena die.' Yes, he let ONE woman die. But he let ALL the men die. Each and every one. It's kind of stupid to say that he 'saved all the worthy people' when one gender has been deemed 'unworthy' as a whole. Especially because he's in the traps because he didn't cover a man ( Jigsaw and is judged by the relatives of another Tara and Brent. I mean, if all the characters deemed 'worthy' were male, there would be a lot of people upset. And instead, this seems to bug only me. I can only hope that Saw VII isn't as sexist.
Honestly? I think that it was to offer a perspective from someone who knows, and I mean KNOWS, that they're going to die because of him. The chances are blown. The time is nigh. It's all over. It's the last little diatribe he gives that makes the choice seem genuinely wrong in retrospect, and in any sane world, that little bit of dialogue would have netted him some sort of award.
But why did it have to be her? Why did it have to be a woman? The scene would've probably been even better if the saved person before Josh deserved to live. My suggestion? Aaron And Shelby, as I've already said, didn't.
Yeah, but let's take a toll of all the people that survived their trap. Presumably Dr. Gordon, Amanda, Amanda again, Judge Halden survived his trap, but died as part of another person's trap so he's on here, Art survived his first trap, but not the second, the chick with the abusive husband, Hoffman, Strahm, Brit, Mallick, and apparently from the 8-minute clip we were shown at Comic-Con, the two dudes survived their trap but the girl hanging over them didn't. So over the 12 people that survived one of their traps, 1/3rd of them are females so you can't really judge a franchise on sexism like that.
It wasn't Saw as a franchise I was judging, but Saw VI the movie. I thought the fact that I didn't speak of any other installment made it clear... Besides, people who survived one trap and then died do not count because they died.
In a time of emergency, people still generally go for the "children and women first" approach. Simple as that. Calling sexism right away based on the behavior of ONE character is quite a stretch. Also, when you're placed in a gigantic death trap and forced to kill half of your coworkers and friends, you have other priorities in mind than "does that make me sexist?"
Three quarters. And I'm calling it sexism because Shelby did not deserve to live. Man, did the writers blew it or what? Besides, if the 'children and women first' excuse was used, wouldn't it have been Gena who lived? The male characters in VI (except for maybe William) are basically expendable. Note that the only male character that speaks about his family does it just to say he's rich, while two of the female survivors have family that need them and one successfully uses a lie about her family as an excuse to live. Also, the placement of the male characters. First (when William doesn't even seem to understand what is going to happen and basically is too slow to realize that Aaron is going to die if he doesn't do anything about it), fourth (he gets ignored) and last (who ends up forgotten and dies fully knowing the devotion to his job was all for naught, he didn't even register as a person on his boss' radar, as 'a bitch said something and then it was all over').
But take a look at the people he saves—they all have, or claim to have, families. Considering that Pamela is William's only family, it would make sense that he'd be more willing to spare them. Granted, it doesn't excuse or explain the fact that he denied a husband and father insurance coverage, or that he skipped Pamela's birthday. Maybe that was part of the point, though, if not the whole one.
Dave had a family, too, but he was not spared, while Shelby lies (it's pretty obvious that she is) and gets saved right after him? The only connection those people have is that they're all women. Addie and Emily have families. 'Shelby doesn't.
The whole "it's sexist" thing can be answered by the fact that the guy playing the game was a guy. If I was playing that game and I wasn't close to anyone (friends or romantically), I'd still try and save the women. Half of it comes from the "male protector role" and the other half is that they were mostly hot women (who might be "grateful" to the guy for saving them, if you know what I mean). The Movie was nothing even remotely close to "men suck, women rule". It was simply a guy with a penis thinking like a guy.
I can't decide if I'm more offended as a man by the movie or by your justifications for a person basically stating one gender didn't deserve to live as a whole (especially the sexual one, which would be the last thing a guy in that situation would think about). Besides, Gena was hotter than Shelby, yet Shelby (who is also the worse person) lives and Gena dies.
You can't really determine if someone deserves to live or die based on their sixty seconds of character development. Is it reprehensible for them to deny or terminate insurance claims based on technicalities? Absolutely. Does that mean they should be kidnapped, tortured, and then shot for it? Not really. They were all in a situation where they were about to be shot; they were doing everything within their power to be saved. Wouldn't you say anything if it got your boss to push the lever for you? Aaron was simply the only one to be 100% up front about it. He didn't try to bribe, beg, or negotiate, he simply said, "I deserve to live" (read: "I want to live"). That's basically what the others were saying; they just tried to be more enticing about it (i.e., appealing to his sympathy, greed, and judge of character). Every creature has the divine right to self-preservation. Saw VI is a commentary on a broken system, but there are people within that system who are just trying to earn a paycheck... pencil-pushers, like them, who have no executive authority or ability to change the parameters of their profession, and are simply trying to succeed based on the merits that are rewarded. If you positively alter the system, the parameters, and the merits, all six of these people would have worked towards those instead, because then that would have been their definition of professional success.
In regards to William choosing to save Shelby over Josh, by then he had grown sick of all their reasons of why they should be picked over the other. In fact, throughout most of the whole trap, he's kind of in a daze. Like all of the others in his position, he doesn't have time to analyze the situation and make an informed and well-reasoned choice. By the time it gets to Josh and Shelby, the camera and sound go out of focus, indicating that he's not really paying attention anymore and he was no longer making a conscious decision. Their pleading didn't really matter at that point. If you notice, the carousel does not stop in the order in which the victims sat; it was completely random. William turned away, stuck his hand in the trap, and pressed the lever. It had a 50/50 chance of stopping on Josh or Shelby. He didn't look at who it was until the moment before the gun fired. He didn't care who he saved, so long as he saved somebody and had one less body on his conscience. So she wasn't picked because she was a woman; she was picked for the sake of being picked.
If possible, that's even worse; and sure saving only women and choosing at random didn't win him any bonus points with Tara and Brent.
Why? Nothing in Tara/Brent's dialogue suggests they have noticed he tends to save the women, nor do they come across as militant men's rights activists. They kill him solely for the personal grievance against someone they knew. It's likely little he could have done would have stopped them from doing it, even if he'd spent every spare moment talking about how he donates to charities, volunteers at a homeless shelter and saves stray animals.
I think the point in the reasoning is that Brent (or should we call him Leo?) may have killed William because he thought he let his father die out of personal dislike for the entire male gender, based on his choices of who should live (the most blatant case being Shelby).
Okay, did I misinterpret Brent and Tara's lines? I thought "You killed my father, you motherfucker!... Now you burn in hell!" from Brent and "Did [William] show mercy when my husband was suffering?" from Tara pretty much cinches that they're only looking at what William did to Harold.
But the fact that Saw VI has a lot more men die is literally the only example of possible anti-male sexism in a franchise that includes a man smacking a woman's head against a table while calling her a cunt, ridiculous views on prostitutes (Addison from II was originally meant to get a trap that scarred her face as punishment for coasting through life on her looks... yeah cause all prostitutes are lazy and beautiful), zero sexualized deaths of men (although I give the franchise credit for sexualizing relatively few women's deaths, it still pops up occasionally), and has far more significant male characters (i.e., those that drive the plot). I wouldn't say Saw is egregiously sexist either way, but concentrating on this is a bit far-fetched, and it's on every single Saw sub-page, coming across as someone with an agenda.
Um, it has almost every single male character apart from the villain and The Scrappy die. Not just 'a lot more men'. And in all fairness, that was Eric after having been trapped by Amanda, and he was fighting against her. Are you seriously telling me he was wrong in being enraged against his captor?? Besides, notice how many women survive their traps against the men who do.
So in a genre known for its terrible treatment of women, when a franchise comes out that could be argued to subvert and defy some misogynistic pitfalls of horror movies, it's still reprehensible and sexist? Well, now you know how a lot of women feel watching a lot of horror films. Also, please note that in Saw VI the person who has the power to save or doom people is William, a man, and is later killed by Brent, and the whole test was designed by John and executed by Hoffman. So even though more men die in the film than women (and that is the case in every single Saw film, going by this site), it's still the men who are in positions of power and control. Sure, the gender ratio could be more balanced, but it's not the end-all be-all of the entire film and saying that its message is that Men Are the Expendable Gender (or saying that Shelby deserved to die, which, wait, what?) is missing the point of what the writers were saying about assigning arbitrary value to human life.
Not the poster you were replying to, but they kinda fucked up that 'assigning arbitrary value to human life' part when they fucking had the traps requiring someone's death, coing smack dab against the Jigsaw we've seen in the previous five films. In all the other films, the test subjects could all have lived. Here, someone was MEANT to die. Not to mention all the talk about the fact that assigning arbitrary value to human life was the theme of the film, yet the writers showed they believed women should live and men shouldn't, since not one of the surviving characters in the traps is male. Every single male character apart from Hoffman and Brent (the Bad Guy and The Scrappy) gets gruesomely killed, in the case of William even making the whole game/most of the movie, not to mention at least SEVEN DEATHS, completely pointless. I'm not the one who fucked the movie, the writers were.
"In all the other films, the test subjects could all have lived." I believe the guy who "participated" in Amanda's first game would call "bullshit" on that statement.
Mark from the first movie as well, I think. His test was, quite frankly, unescapable. Still, Saw VI does feel like wasted time (and deaths) when William is killed at the end.
It just kind of bugs me that the only survivor of any of Jigsaw's traps was Amanda, who arguably had the easiest trap of anyone else in the entire series. The only thing she had to do was cut open another person and dig for a key, which should have been a huge decision and a moral conundrum, but Jigsaw explicitly told Amanda that the person was dead, when they really weren't. Seriously, why did he tell her he was dead? And who was this person that Jigsaw simply chose to die? Did he fail a trap in a non-lethal way, with his "death" being used in this way?
Probably because cutting someone open is still squick, and realizing he's still alive before doing it, makes it nightmare fuel.
It wasn't THAT easy. She had to stab a path through a guy's stomach with a little tiny scalpel and then find a tiny little hidden somewhere inside his intestines and the unlock the RBT and get it off her face. In under sixty seconds, no less. That's not arguably easy — it's pretty damn hard. Gordon had the easiest test of all: all he had to do was shoot a random stranger who had been taking pictures of him to give to a crazy ex-police officer. And he was given several hours to do it. And yet, he still didn't win.
It wasn't easy by any normal definition of the word, but it was easy relative to the other games that Jigsaw's subjects had to play. Most involved severe self-mutilation (Pound of Flesh) or the possibility of dying a horrible death as a result of attempting to escape (Flammable Jelly). Compared to having to gouge one's own eye out or crawling through a barbed-wire maze with a time limit, finding a key in some half-conscious guy's entrails is a walk in the park.
You might want to cut down on the horror films, it's skewed your perspective. People on here handwave victims acting in a stupid fashion by claiming they're in shock or terrified and thus do silly things, but then talk of how easy some traps were and say ridiculous things like 'all she had to do was murder another human being, then root around in his guts to find a key that would unlock the bear trap that's been ticking down this whole time to tearing her face apart...'. Amanda is a junkie, not a psycopath. Sure, some traps are less difficult compared to others, but they're still objectively near-impossible and horrendously traumatising for the average person. To be honest if you put most people in the RBT and put the key on the other side of the room, most people wouldn't have in undone within sixty seconds, since they'd waste time panicking and fumbling with the lock.
Amanda isn't the sole survivor of a trap; Mallick, Brit and Bobby come to mind. Not to mention she survived ONCE, but then ended up getting tested again and ended up failing apparently because of Hoffman.
In Saw IV what was up with all the Mind Screw 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?
I don't have a good answer for that, but in the earlier three movies they also tried to put plot above gore and Technology Porn. All of that went out the window in the fourth movie, and it only went downhill from there, so it's quite likely that they were just trying to be flashy and stylistic instead of producing anything of quality.
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.
On the one hand, this was a very brave, atypical approach to making more Saw sequels 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, 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 extremely convoluted. Think too hard about everything, and it makes your head hurt.
In Saw, we see Zepp playing with his kidnap victims in a sadistic manner; i.e. putting a gun to Alison's head and using a stethoscope to observe how Diana's heartbeat reacts. This makes sense while we think that Zepp is Jigsaw, but Fridge Logic kicks in once we learn that he was just yet another innocent pawn. One is left with the feeling that this scene was put there merely for effect, and admittedly it is a very powerful scene ...
Innocent pawn? There must have been some reason Jigsaw decided to put him in a "game" and poison him. Odds are even though he isn't Jigsaw, he was still a sick fuck.
Being in Jigsaw's games reveals nothing about the victim's character. Saying that "there must be a reason Jigsaw chose him, so he's probably a sick fuck" makes no sense; most of his victims are just ordinary, albeit flawed, people. Word of God has it that Zepp was relishing a situation where he was finally in control over the lives of others, and he was getting sick thrills from it while he had the opportunity. So, yeah, he was a sick fuck, but that has nothing to do with why Jigsaw chose him.
Correct me i'm wrong. But I recall a flashback where Zepp speaks up about the doctor needing to care more about the patients or something before getting belittled while Jigsaw watches in the background. If you see someone being pushed around and have a brain tumor that gives your the deductive capabilities of memetic batman. Would it be that hard to realize here is a victim who is contantly being pushed around. Why not give him a chance to push back. If he abuses this control he dies like any other test. If he uses control to what Jigsaw deems appropriate then he lives.
So why exactly does Jigsaw make all these traps where it is literally required for another person to die for the other to survive? If the purpose of his games are to test people's merit and worthiness of survival then making tests where people aren't given a chance, such as William's parasol trap where he has to choose who the shotgun kills and who it doesn't, contradicts everything Jigsaw claims to stand for. He is a hypocrite regardless because putting people in deadly situations is still murder, but it gets into hypocrite of the freaking century territory when you consider this part too.
Well, I wondered the same thing until I realized that most of these traps were actually designed by his apprentices, so it could be explained by them not understanding Jigsaw's goal (especially when you consider the inescapable traps Amanda created), but then again, in Saw V, he appears in person to explain the rules of such games, implying he approves of them (though one could argue he decides not to interfere with his apprentices' games and only appears to do his bit without giving his opinion). I also had another theory that this is Fridge Brilliance. That the makers of these movies do NOT want the viewers to like Jigsaw and that they intentionally made him gradually more hypocritical when they realized many people thought his message (enjoy life or don't live at all) made sense. Or you could Take a Third Option and say that Jigsaw is a freaking psychopath, and as such he is nuts and completely unreliable.
He survived and created a horror saga based on his experience. ^_^
Given most of the Saw devices would require hours or days to assemble and then have to tested before being deployed,when would a man dying of cancer find the time to gather so many victims and "test" them? Even w/ assistance?
How did Tapp survive with his throat slashed if no one knew where they were?
It was supposedly Jigsaw who cured him for the tests in the Video Game.
And as of Saw 3D, we have an even better answer: Dr. Gordon fixed him up.
Tapp's throat is healed (badly scarred, but healed) well before Gordon is even put in the bathroom. We know this because he was the one paying Adam to take pictures of Gordon in the first place, and Adam describes him as an "ex-cop" at that point. Tapp was relieved of duty after the death of his partner, which was shortly after he had his throat slashed. So, chronologically it goes (1) Tapp's throat is slashed (2) his partner dies (3) Tapp is healed (somehow) (4) Tapp pays Adam to take pictures (5) Gordon and Adam go through the bathroom trap (6) Gordon join's Jigsaw.
Why was Hoffman "tested" at the end of VI?
Because Jigsaw caught on the fact that Hoffman was a sadist (Do you like how brutality feels, Mark?) and was as keen on just plain murdering as Amanda (Let's be honest. I want him to suffer just as much as you do.) and gave orders to put him in a trap to make him realize how the victims feel. Also, it was supposed to be an escape route for Jill, in the case Hoffman died.
Even so, if Jigsaw was so great at predicting human behavior, he should've known that Jill might want Hoffman dead and use it as a simple deathtrap — and that if Hoffman survived, he'd be out for blood. It seems a careless thing to do if he was so worried about Jill's safety.
In fact, it was built in such a way so he would die... but I think Jigsaw didn't predict the window with the bars, which turned out to be the thing that helped Hoffman survive.
Okay, Saw 3D. I was thrilled to see Dr. Gordon return... but why the hell was he working with Jigsaw? Sure, it explains some details of past traps, but it doesn't fit his character from the first film at all. And how did he track down Hoffman, and why did he do it after Jill was dead? And who were the other pig-mask guys?
Lawrence was the only person who truly understood what John was trying to do. John told him all about Hoffman, and his instructions were to only punish him if Jill died. Not before, as he still had hope that Hoffman would change. As for the other masked men, they were most likely the survivors from the first trap in the film. Halfway through the movie, we see them watching Dagen being interviewed on tv, and have apparently deduced that he was full of shit.
That doesn't quite explain why a man with a new-found appreciation for his family's well-being would associate with a serial killer. Likely ending up with a life sentence and risking the wrath of a pair of Ax-Crazy associates doesn't exactly help his family.
As for the other plotline of 3D... Why did everyone believe Dagen when he had no evidence of being in a trap? And who designed the traps in this movie, Jigsaw or Hoffman? The last film suggested that William and friends were the last advance victims Jigsaw had prepared, but that's definitely his voice on the tapes, and the grudge against Dagen is his.
Hoffman's letter to Amanda is something that has always bugged me about VI. I think the writers simply forgot that John told her to get the letter in III and thought she found it on her own, and didn't bother to go back and re-watch the scene while reusing some of the footage for VI. Or they hoped the Viewers Are Morons.
So, to clarify, Hoffman tells Amanda to kill Lynn, or else he will tell John what he knows. John already knows what Hoffman has to tell him, and Amanda knows that John already knows since he pointed her to the blackmail letter in the first place. So, she calls Hoffman on his bluff by... killing Lynn... what? I think Amanda's drug use really screwed up her short term memory, since that's the only way this makes any sense.
Or, you know, John had written a letter for Amanda, but Hoffman switched it with his own.
Yeah, according to the Saw VI commentary, that is the official explanation. It would have been nice to see some indication of that in the movie itself though. It would have only taken up 10 seconds or less of screen time to show Hoffman pull a letter out of the desk and replace it with his own instead of just showing him putting his letter in the desk.
Why is the razor wire trap still standing when Strahm visits the location in Saw V? The body is removed, and as best as I can tell the blood has been cleaned off, but the trap itself is still there. Isn't "removing the razor wire" part of "cleaning the crime scene" in the Saw universe?
On a similar note, why are the police not constantly monitoring that one house from the first film that Jigsaw keeps reusing?
The police don't know where it is until Hoffman leads Ericson there at the end of Saw V. At the end of that movie the only 'non-psychos' that know about the place are Ericson, Brit, and Mallick. It's safe to assume other cops showed up shortly afterwards to assist with the investigation (between V and VI). So, unless the two other people in pigs masks with Gordon are Brit and Mallick, and all of the cops are dead (possible, but unlikely), we just found a pretty obvious way for Hoffman to escape the bathroom should they decide to do a Saw VIII.
The "five become one" game was in a completely different location from the house. Nobody besides Hoffman and Gordon know where it is.
Hmm... in that case I guess it is possible that the house was never found, but only if Lawrence converted really fast so he wouldn't tell anyone. And Jigsaw has to have covered his tracks even better than we already knew; for example, didn't Eric Matthews drive his squad car to the house? Even if they moved or destroyed it, those cars are surely tracked from the station by GPS or something. (Also, I don't remember off the top of my head if any victims or traps from that house were mentioned by the police later, but the whole thing falls apart if so.)
Lawrence did convert pretty quickly, as shown in VII. Since John nursed him back to health instead of taking him to a hospital, he had little contact with the outside world until he was able to actually move on his own again. By that point, he was firmly in John's corner.
Joyce's death in Saw 3D just bugs me. Throughout all seven movies, I can think of a justification why Jigsaw (using his twisted logic, that is, if there's anything at all wrong with you or even just something he has a chip on his shoulder about) put everyone else in a trap (excluding Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter, but they ultimately survived, and I don't think they were actually supposed to be in any danger; see Fridge page for my theory on that), but not her. We don't learn much about her, but from what we see, she's pretty much a perfect wife and genuinely loved Bobby and was the only reason the guy is actually sympathetic at all. Sure, she was a bit annoying as a character, but if there's anyone in entire Saw who seemed like they would pass Jigsaw's morality standards, it was her. And then she is fried alive in what is possibly the most Nightmare Fuel sequence of the series. I can't understand that. Okay, Adam apparently was kind of an asshole and had a job Jigsaw didn't approve of; Dr. Gordon cheated on his wife and was apathetic about his patients; Zep had a hidden sadistic streak; Sing went after Jigsaw and therefore tried to prevent him from making more traps for the great justice; Laura was a kleptomaniac (I read that somewhere); Danica and Judge prevented Timothy from being judged fairly; Rigg was too keen to save everybody; Art defended bad people; Strahm and Perez - same as Sing, tried to capture Jigsaw/Hoffman; Willian's employees worked for him and indirectly (or directly, in case of Carousel Trap victims) helped him deny people insurance; Bobby's associates promoted his lie. This must all make sense somehow, if you're Jigsaw. But Joyce didn't do anything wrong, really, anything at all. The only explanation I can think of is that Bobby's expected failure in the last trap was supposed to kill him, not her; but Hoffman changed this detail, just because he's that much Ax-Crazy.
By the time saw 3D comes around, Jigsaw had been dead for a while. Hoffman doesn't quite have the same "vision" as John.
Yeah, Hoffman's the main fault. Also, Joyce is perceived as Bobby's prize for all the lying and glory he's got out of his book, so the best thing to do when he fails?
I don't think we ever figure out what was up with the guy in Amanda's trap from the first movie, either. Or the other dude in the chair with the neck-drills. Jigsaw didn't have a habit of hurting 'innocent' people, but Joyce wasn't the first time.
John puts Gordon's wife and child in a position to be killed by an unstable Zepp so an innocent person being part of a game shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
How, exactly, did the key get embedded in William's abdomen? Gordon being in on it all along helps clear up the plot hole of how an engineer, John, could possibly know how to do the medical stuff shown throughout the series. Also, it is heavily implied that Gordon only ever worked with John, and not his apprentices. However, by the time that William is captured, John is dead, and so Gordon isn't helping anymore. So... who cut open William, buried a key in him, sewed him back up, and still had William alive/mobile enough to carry through with his game?
Not even just mobile enough to carry on, apparently unaware of the key implant even taking place. Maybe it was the same person who did the teeth thing in Saw 3D, and apparently did the job so well that Bobby didn't even realize his teeth has been extracted and replaced. Wish my dentist was that skilled with the pain avoidance...
Possibly the key's implant took place some weeks before, during an otherwise-unrelated operation? If William had needed his gallbladder removed or something, an accomplice at the hospital could've possibly slipped the key into a gauze-pack during the procedure. Maybe even Zepp could've arranged it, if Jigsaw put William on his "to-do" list sufficiently long ago.
Given the fact that it was bleeding when he woke up, and that he reacted with surprise when he saw the scar, I don't think that it was implanted until then. It's possible that Hoffman had cut into William while he was unconscious, and stitched him back up once the key was put into him.
On a similar note, Hoffman has always bugged me. One of the complaints about the first movie when it came out was "How can Jigsaw do all of this by himself?" In order to answer that question, he was given apprentices. However, Hoffman was never given helpers, and yet he manages to set up traps that are far more elaborate than anything Jigsaw ever did, even with two (three if you count Obi) assistants. The main trap in Saw VI is a great example. First of all, we are supposed to believe that he built everything shown in that movie (the carousel, the breathing thing, and, especially, the steam maze) all by himself. We are also supposed to believe that he kidnapped, what, 14 people? In one night? Really?
Hoffman has helpers in pig masks in Saw 3D, who could have helped with the kidnapping and construction. Moreover, perhaps Jigsaw himself acquired the parts and made the blueprints for the traps before his death, or even started construction on them, and Hoffman merely got them finished and utilized them.
So how many of you thought Hoffman and Strahm were the same person in Saw IV and V? I didn't realize this until watching V. This wouldn't be so bad if the producers deliberately hired two actors (who oddly enough resemble Sylvester Stallone) to look similar for a Mind Screw. Judging from the fans' reactions, probably not.
They have a scene together, investigating Kerry's trap, right at the beginning of IV. They even have a conversation during that scene. So, yeah, I've never understood this complaint about those movies.
Are you saying that all White guys look the same?! THAT'S RACIST!!!
This has nothing to do with the Saw films directly, but the public perception of the Saw series (i.e., from people who never watched it). I'm trying to figure out exactly why these people loathe the series to such a degree. Yeah, you can debate the films may not be fantastically produced, but since when did gratuitous violence single out an entire horror series as utterly deplorable torture porn (which doesn't accurately classify the series, since there's no real torture performed), and its viewers as sadistic perverts? Hollywood is built on showcasing graphic violence, especially these days, yet Saw gets singled out as THE point where it goes too far, and is an indication of the impending apocalypse? Hello?! Ever heard of Marquis De Sade, whose literature jump started the concept of sadism? Hell, before De Sade, public brutality (a la Gladiator) was a staple of entertainment. Human brutality has always been around, and even with new technology, people have always discovered awful ways to kill each other. Even more ironic, when the Saw video games were released, hardcore gamers saw it as an abomination. To say nothing of the survival horror genre, Grand Theft Auto, Gears of War, and especially Rockstar's Manhunt, which predated the first Saw movie, AND even made people who're used to violent video games very uncomfortable. So why single out the Saw series to this extent? It's one thing to dislike a film series, but to absolutely trash it for simply being malevolent comes off as absurd and hypocritical.
which doesn't accurately classify the series, since there's no real torture performed: So people getting slowly crushed to death, injected with large amounts of acid, slowly getting cut in half by a pendulum, their limbs twisted and broken, and their scalps torn off for the sake of punishing them for crimes they have committed doesn't count as torture?
This is probably splitting hairs, but that depends on your definition of torture. Torture, to me at least, means slow and painful. With very few exceptions, most of the deaths in the films are actually quite quick, if gruesome. Most are under a second (RBT, Angel, Shotgun Collar, Garage, etc.), and almost all are under a minute. Granted, that is an extremely unpleasant minute (the rack comes to mind...)
The time it takes has nothing to do with whether something is considered torture or not.
However, as implied above, there are exceptions. The freezer (III), and starving in the bathroom (I) are definitely torture. Of course, neither is particularly gory, and neither is what people are talking about when the describe the series as Torture Porn.
Original poster here. With few exceptions - like the rack from III and scalping device from IV - many of the gruesome deaths don't exactly seem like torture in the traditional sense. Hostel does, but most of Saw's tests involve lots of self-mutilation and the occasional murder. While the victims were highly coerced to harm themselves, what with the threat of impending death, they still have some control instead of being bound, helpless, and getting tormented by some third party. This pretty much classifies every death in the first two movies, and most deaths within the entire series. Hell, even The Passion of the Christ fits the torture porn bill more accurately than Saw does.
There are plenty of forms of torture where the perpetrator never lays a finger on the victim. The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as 'any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as...punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person'. So torture is the use of pain and injury, or fear of pain and injury, to force another person to behave in a certain way or perform a certain action (ie the self-mutilation in Jigsaw's traps), or punishing someone for a perceived crime through severe mental or physical suffering (Jigsaw's entire reason for his actions).
Also, saying that because the victims are merely "highly coerced to harm themselves" is ridiculous as in pretty much every trap the victims are FORCED to MUTILATE themselves, there's no other solution. The fact they're not tied up means nothing- they have no control, since the absolute only thing they can do to save their life is what their capturer wants.
Popularity is the answer. Why do you think people raged about GTA San Andreas having the "sex scene" (through hacking and it was pretty lame anyway) when Indigo Prophecy had a sex scene you could control with the analog stick (and necrophilia in a cutscene)? GTA:SA was far more popular, thats why. And most of the people that rage on it are pretty ignorant themselves and don't actually use intelligent research.
People being killed quickly=okay-ish. People suffering for a minute or 2 before death=OMYGODTHISISDEMONICANDEVILANDISTHEENDOFCINEMA!!!!!!!
The "Pound Of Flesh" trap. How did the skinny woman win?? A 300 lb guys slices off the chunks of his belly, giving himself a huge advantage. She chops off her wrist (which has zero body fat on it), drops it in the chute, and it doesn't even go all the way through! Most of it is still inside the chute, resting against the wall. Even if it did somehow outweigh three large chunks of fat, most of it's weight was still being supported, and wouldn't have registered on the scale!!
My guess? The hand alone might have been enough with the bones' combined density. With the additional forearm, that only adds up to the total weight.
The above troper is correct. Fat is more voluminous than muscle. It takes approximately twice the volume of fat to match the equivalent weight of muscle. In other words, if you put a pound of fat and a pound of muscle side-by-side, the muscle will take up half as much space as the fat does; it will look as though there is more fat despite the fact that they weight the exact same amount. So while all those chunks of fat look like they'd be able to tip the scales in his favor, that's not necessarily the case. What is more irritating about the trap is that Simone specifically told Eddie not to lean forward so as not to activate it, and that is exactly what he immediately proceeds to do.
Fat floats, which is a good indicator of how lightweight it is.
Also, the girl in the "Pound of Flesh" trap was the winner of Scream Queens, so it was pretty obvious she was going to survive.
The Scream Queens winner that was in Saw 3D didn't survive, and on top of that had less than a minute of screen time.
Her character was going to survive, but it was changed while filming.
I heard the director's cut (hardy har har) of the film was different but Simone severed her wrist instead of her arm (at the elbow)? That's crazy man!
Could the survivors of a Jigsaw trap be charged with homicide if the means of their escape was dependent upon killing a co-victim?
Apparently not in the Saw universe. See Tapp's treatment of Amanda in Saw for an example. In the real world, it probably depends on the jurisdiction.
Their lawyer, hopefully current with ethical theory, would immediately point out that a forced action is automatically morally neutral and secure their acquittal.
There's actually a name for this: The Plank of Carneades, a thought experiment that questions if a murder in such a situation wouldn't be considered self-defense as it's a case of do-or-die.
I'm Brazilian and I would think most places would have exceptions for what Brazilian law calls "state of necessity", meaning you violate someone else's right (s) because it's the only way to protect a right of your own. The person would still be prosecuted, but proving state of necessity would either make the case get thrown out before it gets to a jury, or it would go to a jury, and the person would be acquited (well, techically, it would be decided that their act wasn't a crime) if the jurors decided the act was comited in "state of necessity".
In Amanda's case, one could also argue that she believed Jigsaw's tape that said the guy was already dead when she'd started cutting.
I think the court would take the circumstances into consideration, having woken up in a room, completely disoriented and having been drugged, you might not even be charged with a crime.
In the case of the Acid Needle trap, the teenage son would almost certainly be charged with something for what he did. He had no incentive to pull the lever and kill William- had he not pulled it they would have all been rescued. It was done purely out of revenge and was cold-blooded murder (in one of the most gruesome ways possible). He also has no deniability- it was laid out for him in pretty certain terms what would happen if he pulled the "Life or Death" lever.
If John is wealthy enough to own several large warehouses (with previous plans to redevelop them), buy expensive medical equipment, buy the materials and equipment to build all of his traps, why did he not put that money toward treating his cancer? Yes, medical treatment for chronic diseases is expensive, but it can't be more expensive than everything else he buys, can it?
Could be a matter of what John finds to be worth the money. For John Kramer, what's more important: prolonging a life that's inevitably going to end no matter what he does, or using it to "help" as many people as he can in the time he has left? John's not afraid of death following his suicide, so lengthening his life isn't particularly vital to him. Especially once he has Amanda & Hoffman to carry on his work.
In VI, Kramer tells the insurance agent who turned down, "Don't talk to me about money; I have money. It's about principal." Earlier in the movie he's shown bald in a flashback, obviously due to chemotherapy. So my guess is he did put money towards treating his cancer, but when he knew his death was inevitable, the games began.
One of the later movies shows the origin of Billy the Puppet: John, a toymaker, was making it for the child his wife Jill was pregnant with at the time (and subsequently miscarried due to an attack by one of her drug clinic patients). While it hadn't yet achieved Creepy Doll status in-universe, it still looks pretty demented. What sort of sane father would plan to give that sort of thing to his own kid?!
The sort of sane person who would put people in death traps.
Fridge Logic: In Saw 3D. Okay seriously, what idiot leaves only five police officers and a coroner guarding a police precinct? Hoffman led most of the officers away from the building, but there is no excuse for leaving that few people inside a POLICE PRECINCT.
I was just wondering, at the end of Saw II, what happened to Daniel after he's saved? He's the only main character, to the best of my knowledge, not to be referenced again.
One major one that bugged me and has me denounce all films after three. Has Gordon just gone off and forgot about his family at the end? Seriously, the first one he was majorly caring about them, what happened after. I mean the public knows that he has survived so would his family, plus he's in his office, surely his secretary would have popped in and said, "by the way, your family are still alive". Yet at the end of Seven he's been shown to have turned. Did the writers forget about one of the major plot points in the first film about his family or something?
There could be something along the lines of Jigsaw before he died, of course, saying to Gordon "Oh, your family made it out okay." or I don't know, maybe someone arranged a secret meeting between his family and him just to reassure him. At film seven, I doubt Gordon was caring about his family at this point, and more concerned about finding Hoffman and making him "believe the true purpose of Jigsaw's tests".
That doesn't make any sense. What, Gordon just doesn't care about his family anymore? To clarify I mean he wouldn't work with Jigsaw considering how much he wanted to be with his family. Seriously, watch the first one, there's a reason he cut his own leg off.. Character Derailment at its finest.
He wanted his family safe. Considering how merciless this series is towards its characters and their loved ones, it's possible Gordon agreed to help Jigsaw on the sole condition that his wife and daughter be allowed to leave the city and never get involved in these "games" — not Jigsaw's, not Hoffman's, not Amanda's, not anyone's — again.
While I didn't "denounce" any of the films I thought that one of (if not the biggest) flaw of Saw 7 was spending so little time with Gordon. It wouldn't have hurt for them to spend a few minutes showing how Gordon's experience and new "outlook on life" affected his relationship with his family. However him accepting Jigsaw's philosophy doesn't mean he stopped caring about them.
It bugs me that people constantly refer to Hoffman and Gordon with the term "apprentice". Throughout the series it was clear that the one that was being groomed to take over his work was Amanda; the other two were basically just tools he brought in (and in the former, blackmailed) to help with the dirty work. Those two are more correctly "accomplices" than what everyone chooses to call them.
Gordon maybe, but Hoffman was a true apprentice. Jigsaw's goal from the start was to convert him — teach him "a kind of rehabilitation that'll let you sleep at night". What's more, it worked. Unlike Amanda, Hoffman made real Jigsaw-style tests for victims like Strahm and the cops in 3D. He actually believed in John's method (remember him asking Simone if she'd learned anything?). He intended to continue, insisting to Jill that he now "control[led] all aspects of the game". Once there was too much evidence to hide, he scorched the earth; his plan after that was probably to skip town and start the game over in another city. His one flaw as Jigsaw was his habit of indulging in personal revenge... and he was only defeated because John shared that flaw, arranging for Gordon to avenge Jill if the need arose.
The latter seems unlikely with Hoffman's insistence that John's work "is almost finished". From the beginning he was only involved out of being blackmailed and wanted out, hence the Gambit Roulette he pulled by tampering with Amanda's test rather than letting it play out the way it was supposed to. Strahm was less a test than an orchestrated murder due to Hoffman's Manipulative Bastard skills knowing exactly how he would act in that situation. All indications seemed to be that Hoffman was intending to finish off William's test and skip town and the Jigasw philosophy entirely, until he went completely Ax-Crazy in the final film.
First Saw: Why didn't Gordon, Adam, or both use something heavy and solid, such as for instance the nearby toilent cover to break their chained feet and then slip out of their cuffs, which they could have done at any point in the movie? Sure, it would have hurt like HELL, but it wouldn't have hurt any less than cutting their own feet off, and it would have been infinitely more survivable and even offered them some mobility if they could've fashioned a crutch out of something.
Banging their feet against something solid could just as easily cause the foot to swell, thus making it harder to get out of the cuffs. Still way better than cutting your foot off, though.
Neither man wanted to hurt themselves during the game. Laurence only sawed his foot off and attempted to murder Adam after hearing his wife fight for her and their daughter's lives.
The Steam Maze in Saw VI: could Debbie have used the portable saw to cut the leather (?) straps holding the device to her and thus survive without having to use the key?
She could've done that, however, doing that would probably be risky for her and attacking Will with the saw, most likely seemed like a less risky alternative.
Where does Hoffman find the time to put people in his traps in The Final Chapter? Isn't he on the run?
At least for the Public Trap, the explanation is that it's a flashback.
How did Hoffman set up that trap in the middle of what looks like some sort of public square?
Simple, put a cover over one side of the glass, set the devices up, put the "players" in, then remove the cover, probably with a remote control.
Ok, I know that they were scared and disorientated, but does anyone else think there was a way to escape the opening trap in Saw 3D (with Brad, Ryan and Dina) without anyone dying? I get the point of the guys "breaking up" with Dina, but seriously. They were tied to the machine only by their hands. If one of the guys had dropped to their knees to avoid the buzzsaw blade, the other could have pushed the device far enough to one side that the middle blade wouldn't hit Dana.
Most of the traps in the series could've easily been gotten out of by their victims if they only used their heads instead of freaking out, especially the ones without any real time limit and this is no exception.
I think Brad and Ryan were both too tall to kneel down and get out of the way of the blades, which were high enough to hit each one in the lower-middle chest when the other pushed. They can really only get down as far as the level of their shackled hands anyway, which would probably put their faces at spinning-death-level.
Are we to believe the FBI just flat out gave up after Saw VI? The last film has Internal Affairs of all people trampling onto what had become a federal investigation. A mass murderer that had just killed multiple agents doesn't seem like something that would be shrugged off and ignored, especially after Hoffman was outed, that evidence should have been immediately turned over to the lead investigation instead of the locals charging in and screwing up massively.
Did Jigsaw ever wonder if his traps would have the opposite effect on the victim's psyche if they survived? For example, plenty of soldiers get into horrifying situations during wartime and many usually suffer PTSD symptoms even when there is no danger around. Same goes for PO Ws. While a few people did come out a little happier with their lives (Amanda being one of them, although that's still YMMV), just as much people may come out of it learning absolutely nothing but the fact that they were part of a crazy torturer's mind games and were somehow lucky to survive. Misery does not always build character you know.
The trap seen at the beginning of Saw VI just bugged me somehow. In it two predatory lenders are supposed to sacrifice a piece of their flesh in order the tip the weights that will prevent one of them from getting killed by having screws pierce the loser's temples. The female lender managed to survive by chopping off her arm and dropping it into the scale, which weighed more than the overweight male lender's pieces of fat that he was cutting off from his torso. The problem here is that muscle is much more dense than fat which may cause it weigh more. So even if the male lender sacrificed an equal pound of fat compared to the the woman's arm, the arm will still have a greater density and thus more weight, meaning the male lender would have to sacrifice even more fat to survive which would go against the purpose of the games to make the chance of survival between two victims equal. And don't say fat is not a good sacrifice, because forcibly tearing it from your stomach where vital organs could easily be punctured and blood loss assured sounds just as painful as chopping off an arm.
No reason the fat guy couldn't have sacrificed an arm just like his partner did, he just wasn't desperate enough to give up a limb when he thought he had an alternative.
I was watching "How Saw Should Have Ended" and it brings up a couple of interesting points. Like how do you sleep underwater without drowning? i'd mention the blood loss thing as well but they did the same thing in The Walking Dead Season 1 If you choose to amputate Lee's arm. So i'm assuming a good tourniquet stops blood loss
What if in the time between Kramer recording the tape and the victim being put in the trap they have gotten a condition that somehow makes it impossible for them to get out, like they're blind or missing an arm? What if they're deaf and can't hear the tape?