#1
so I assume most people have seen the first saw movie.

if you haven't, beware of spoilers.


----------


Is it just me, or were both of the guys faced with an impossible task? I know Jigsaw's shtick is to put people in life-threatening situations, in order to get them to appretiate life, but I have no idea how the guys from the first saw film could've escaped. they were both doomed to die, no matter what they did. This does not fit with the ideologies of the Jigsaw figure, which is why I'm asking, did I miss something? or were the two guys from the first film really destined to die?

thanks.
#2
I have never seen any of the Saw films. However, I am of the complete and utter belief that Jigsaw is, for lack of a better word, a loony.


S t a i r s s r i a t S

#3
Didn't it turn out the key was somewhere nearby? I don't recall too well.

ಠ_ಠ

wat

#4
The first was the only one I've seen and I thought it sucked so much ass I refuse to watch another one.
#5
I guess they could have survived but they would probably have had to known all the shit they found out later first.

Also in Saw 3 when the black dude is on the cross and his bones are getting twisted there was nothing he could do to prevent himself from dying it was someone elses decision

I bet if Jigsaw got put in half those scenarios he would die.
#6
TS, Dr Gordon had to saw off his foot, get the gun, and kill Adam. That is, unless he were to use the poisoned cigarette. He would (possibly) survive, depending on exactly where the basement was and how far he would have to crawl in order to get help.

Adam had to stay alive, and make sure Gordon didn't kill him. It is possible for him to survive.


My main niggle with the first Saw film is that when Tapp and Sing go to Jigsaw's lair, he slices Tapp's throat with a blade, which conveniently doesn't kill him. Jigsaw can't have known that it wouldn't kill Tapp, meaning Jigsaw was attempting to kill him. However having seen the other Saw films I can speculate that maybe it was in fact Hoffman who was in the Jigsaw lair in Saw I, not John.
#8
Quote by Random3
TS, Dr Gordon had to saw off his foot, get the gun, and kill Adam. That is, unless he were to use the poisoned cigarette. He would (possibly) survive, depending on exactly where the basement was and how far he would have to crawl in order to get help.

Adam had to stay alive, and make sure Gordon didn't kill him. It is possible for him to survive.


My main niggle with the first Saw film is that when Tapp and Sing go to Jigsaw's lair, he slices Tapp's throat with a blade, which conveniently doesn't kill him. Jigsaw can't have known that it wouldn't kill Tapp, meaning Jigsaw was attempting to kill him. However having seen the other Saw films I can speculate that maybe it was in fact Hoffman who was in the Jigsaw lair in Saw I, not John.

how was Dr. Gordon supposed to survive sawing his own foot off (which he eventually does) ?? even if he killed adam, it would be impossible for him to escape.

Adam had even less chances of surviving, since his fate depended on the choices of Dr. Gordon. The logic of Jigsaw is fully flawed in this game, he had no way of allowing either prisoner to escape.
#9
Wasn't there a key to unlock the things around their ankles but it went down the drain for some reason? Haven't seen it in a while.
#10
You guys forget that they only invented Jigsaw's "game" mentality to attempt to justify the existence of the sequels.
#11
Quote by Gmp
Wasn't there a key to unlock the things around their ankles but it went down the drain for some reason? Haven't seen it in a while.

Yeah Adam accidentally flushed it down a drain when he was thrashing about at the beginning if i recall. But i mean what the **** else was he expected to do?
#12
Quote by joemama9119
You guys forget that they only invented Jigsaw's "game" mentality to attempt to justify the existence of the sequels.

that's definately something I never thought about.

It is very well possible that the entire philosophy of Jigsaw was thought of AFTER his first movies, which would explain why they do not make sense withing the canon of the Jigsaw scheme.
#13
Quote by CoreysMonster
that's definately something I never thought about.

It is very well possible that the entire philosophy of Jigsaw was thought of AFTER his first movies, which would explain why they do not make sense withing the canon of the Jigsaw scheme.

Still...
Quote by Rupert1616
Also in Saw 3 when the black dude is on the cross and his bones are getting twisted there was nothing he could do to prevent himself from dying it was someone elses decision
#14
i doubt they thought that they would make a 2nd, 3rd etc so the jigsaw character had no other meaning than a crazy serial killer
Gotta keep my eyes from the circling skies...
tounge tied and twisted just an earth bound misfit...

>CRYPTIC METAPHOR<


Quote by ilikepirates
ilikeyou.

not hated
#15
I think the first one demonstrates a more vicious visual of the Jigsaw guy.

However running through the other films, he becomes an admirer of life again and makes it more possible of survival.

I'm not saying he becomes softer, but he becomes more of a game maker, rather than a point blank murderer.
#16
Quote by HandCreamForFun
I think the first one demonstrates a more vicious visual of the Jigsaw guy.

However running through the other films, he becomes an admirer of life again and makes it more possible of survival.

I'm not saying he becomes softer, but he becomes more of a game maker, rather than a point blank murderer.

actually, after having watched the first three films again, I really don't see how any of them could've survived, except the policeman in the second film.

that is one life that is completely up to his own choices, which makes jigsaw's philosophy rather useless, and renders him another pointless murderer, imo.
#17
Their chance of survival lay in that key that unluckily went down the drain in the bath.

Therefore the task for not impossible just back luck

I just remembered the guy in the bath was called adam too.
Gear
Bugera 6262 Head
Harley Benton G212 Vintage
Ibanez RGA 121 Prestige
ESP LTD DJ600
Fender USA Stratecaster
Maxon O808
TC Electronic Flashback Delay
ISP Decimator
MXR 10 Band EQ
Boss T-U3 Tuner Pedal
#18
Quote by CoreysMonster
actually, after having watched the first three films again, I really don't see how any of them could've survived, except the policeman in the second film.

that is one life that is completely up to his own choices, which makes jigsaw's philosophy rather useless, and renders him another pointless murderer, imo.



The girl survives in that head device.

Technically they 'can' survive.
#19
Wikipedia says he had the choice in whether to kill Adam or severe his own leg off.

But it's been too long since i've seen the movies to remember things like that.

Jigsaw claims that he doesn't outright murder people, so I'm assuming "self defence" would be a reason why isn't murdering people when he slits that one guys throat.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
"If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?"
#20
because in order to give it some creative merit, the writers had to put in something to make it a little more than a snuff film
Quote by dullsilver_mike
..Bob Barker isn't dead.

Quote by The_Casinator
Nothing is impossible if you're on acid!

Quote by Holy Katana
What if the NES breaks? WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
#21
Quote by HandCreamForFun
The girl survives in that head device.

Technically they 'can' survive.

that is a single survivor, which, in the end, doesn't survive the third film.

in the first film, they cannot survive, since the guy either has to kill himself (as he does) or the other guy (who dies eventually).

In the second one, they are unable to survive due to the unfair traps set in the house.

In the third film, the woman is unable to survive because her life depends on the choice of her husband and the woman who survived in the first film, who goes nuts again.

so in the end, the only person who actually survived the first 3 films is the guy of the third film. and if I recall correctly, he dies in the fourth film anyways, due to circumstances he can't influence, anyways.

the whole jigsaw character is completely flawed, which is a shame, because the idea behindhim is really cool; but without actual choice, the whole idea loses potency.
#22
well with jigsaw if there are multiple people involved then usually someone has to die for someone else to live. So in this situation if the one guy sawed his foot off (or found the key) he would escape and kill the guy holding his family hostage. Doctor guy wins, hostage taker dies.

or doctor doesn't saw foot off and never escapes, then hostage taker kills the family and he lives.

Iunno wtf the photographer was supposed to do.


come to think of it...you're right. didn;t make too much sense did it?


edit: in the second one no one had to die. just people were too retarded to figure out the real puzzle was to just look at the numbers behind everyone's neck (or just move the safe).

i can't remember the third one for the life of me
Quote by edge11
yeah im not at gc dude, i dont live there.


||=(|''''|''''|''''|''''|)>-----
Last edited by Wesseem at Nov 14, 2009,
#23
Quote by Wesseem
well with jigsaw if there are multiple people involved then usually someone has to die for someone else to live. So in this situation if the one guy sawed his foot off (or found the key) he would escape and kill the guy holding his family hostage. Doctor guy wins, hostage taker dies.

or doctor doesn't saw foot off and never escapes, then hostage taker kills the family and he lives.

Iunno wtf the photographer was supposed to do.


come to think of it...you're right. didn;t make too much sense did it?

no, it makes no sense along the lines of jigsaw supposedly helping people appreciate life more. I cannot find any sense in his traps.
#24
you know what my issue was with the first one? why the **** didn't he take his shirt off and use to to get the gun, instead of sawing off his goddamn foot. like it's not even a 'stir of the moment thing.' the guy had several hours to think of something and that was the very first thing that came into my head
Quote by edge11
yeah im not at gc dude, i dont live there.


||=(|''''|''''|''''|''''|)>-----
#26
Quote by Wesseem
you know what my issue was with the first one? why the **** didn't he take his shirt off and use to to get the gun, instead of sawing off his goddamn foot. like it's not even a 'stir of the moment thing.' the guy had several hours to think of something and that was the very first thing that came into my head

what bothers me even more what that in the third movie, the whole idea was for the nurse to keep jigsaw alive, yet that bitch of an assistant wouldn't let her have any kind of medication and expected her to achieve it without medical science.

that was just fucking stupid and illogical. honestly, the more I analyse the Saw series, the more plotholes I find in it, and I used to be a huuuuge fan of the seried.
#27
I agree with TS. I haven't even seen 2, 3, 4 or 5, but my first impression from the first one was how damn flawed the character templates were. Particularly Jigsaw's. The backstory behind him is fairly cool, but it is completely undermined by how inconsistent his template is as a character.
What is mountains? A mountains has no special shapes or sound!



Epic Chill Broseph Of the Australia FTW! Club. PM Alter-Bridge or The_Random_Hero to join.

#28
^lol you shouldn't be a fan. they're making like saw7 or something now. it's just a really easy way for hollywood to rake in the cash. low budget movie + high popularity = $$$$$$$$$

i enjoyed the first two tbh. the 2nd one i didn't really see any plot-holes since the people had the potential to not die, it was just a really hard-as-hell puzzle to figure out. but the rest srsly suck ass

edit: directed towards coreymonster
Quote by edge11
yeah im not at gc dude, i dont live there.


||=(|''''|''''|''''|''''|)>-----
#29
Quote by CoreysMonster
what bothers me even more what that in the third movie, the whole idea was for the nurse to keep jigsaw alive, yet that bitch of an assistant wouldn't let her have any kind of medication and expected her to achieve it without medical science.

that was just fucking stupid and illogical. honestly, the more I analyse the Saw series, the more plotholes I find in it, and I used to be a huuuuge fan of the seried.


Exactly. The movie's "story" is only coincidental to the traps and deaths.

That being said, the key flaw in the Jigsaw character - or at least, the fabricated excuse of a character he is - is that he has no qualms in taking someone else's life so that his "subjects" can learn a lesson. His games are fundamentally sadistic in nature and his justification for why he does what he does are full of holes. His story changes between making people take the lives of others to save their own, making people subject themselves to immense pain to save themselves, and outright slaughtering people in an attempt to "make a point".

If they wanted to give him a realistic justification for his character, then they would explain that he simply enjoy examining people who are put in difficult situations, purely for his own enjoyment. The morality of it is fabricated in an attempt to make the story seem deep and emotional rather than an exercise in sick, twisted sadism.

Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed the premise of the first film; if they'd stopped there, I wouldn't have had any issue. Unfortunately, the sequels fucked up any credibility the first film had.

Edit: actually the second film wasn't that bad. It didn't have any of the presumptuous morality in the third and following movies; it was simply an extremely elaborate puzzle which was not impossible to solve. Plus, I actually really enjoyed the twist at the end.
Last edited by joemama9119 at Nov 14, 2009,
#30
Quote by joemama9119
Exactly. The movie's "story" is only coincidental to the traps and deaths.

That being said, the key flaw in the Jigsaw character - or at least, the fabricated excuse of a character he is - is that he has no qualms in taking someone else's life so that his "subjects" can learn a lesson. His games are fundamentally sadistic in nature and his justification for why he does what he does are full of holes. His story changes between making people take the lives of others to save their own, making people subject themselves to immense pain to save themselves, and outright slaughtering people in an attempt to "make a point".

If they wanted to give him a realistic justification for his character, then they would explain that he simply enjoy examining people who are put in difficult situations, purely for his own enjoyment. The morality of it is fabricated in an attempt to make the story seem deep and emotional rather than an exercise in sick, twisted sadism.

Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed the premise of the first film; if they'd stopped there, I wouldn't have had any issue. Unfortunately, the sequels fucked up any credibility the first film had.

Edit: actually the second film wasn't that bad. It didn't have any of the presumptuous morality in the third and following movies; it was simply an extremely elaborate puzzle which was not impossible to solve. Plus, I actually really enjoyed the twist at the end.


I agree with this, the second film would've been okay, but the Jigsaw character is just too forced after that. and forced in a way that makes him simply illogical, which doesn't really make for a strong villain.
+1 to everything you said, joemama, you've perfectly described everything wrong with the saw series.
#31
Quote by CoreysMonster
I agree with this, the second film would've been okay, but the Jigsaw character is just too forced after that. and forced in a way that makes him simply illogical, which doesn't really make for a strong villain.
+1 to everything you said, joemama, you've perfectly described everything wrong with the saw series.


Not quite. I didn't point out that the films are the worst example of how Hollywood tries to milk a series for every penny that it's worth at the expense of the integrity of the original, good, films.

I'm not opposed to making money, but I *am* opposed to people going to see such terribly-made movies when they're so stupid. We shouldn't encourage that kind of behaviour in Hollywood.
#32
Quote by joemama9119
Not quite. I didn't point out that the films are the worst example of how Hollywood tries to milk a series for every penny that it's worth at the expense of the integrity of the original, good, films.

I'm not opposed to making money, but I *am* opposed to people going to see such terribly-made movies when they're so stupid. We shouldn't encourage that kind of behaviour in Hollywood.

tbh, I actually enjoy the Saw films, no matter how stupid they are.

I even have this thing going on with this girl, where we always watch the newest Saw film together.

We both know it's stupid, but it's still entertaining. So, I guess both of us are guilty of keeping films like Saw alive
#33
ask your asian dorm mates
Cette nuit j'ai rêvé que je mâchais ses yeux
Après avoir crevé par accès de furie
Ta replète panse d'helminthes blancs nourrie,
Trop prompte à déféquer le fruit d'un vit sanieux.
#34
If Lawrence would have cut his foot off sooner, he could have escaped as could Adam, meaning that he probably could have escaped and gotten help for Adam. Brilliant movie anyway, the sequels suck though.
Quote by NGD1313
Well I don't know about solos but how about that Smoke on the Water riff. It's like...impossible.


THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

I'm Jake. I'm a musician, philosopher, and exhibitionist.
#35
Quote by Jacob6293
If Lawrence would have cut his foot off sooner, he could have escaped as could Adam, meaning that he probably could have escaped and gotten help for Adam. Brilliant movie anyway, the sequels suck though.


...Brilliant?

LOL.
Quote by dullsilver_mike
..Bob Barker isn't dead.

Quote by The_Casinator
Nothing is impossible if you're on acid!

Quote by Holy Katana
What if the NES breaks? WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?