Jump to content

Talk:Jigsaw (Saw character)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Classic Horror Icon?

At the bottom of the page, where there's a list of similar Horror Icons with links to their wikipedia pages, Jigsaw is with the "Classic" characters such as Dracula, Frankenstein, and the like. I have a feeling a fanboy movied him there, since it's rather obvious he belongs with the "Modern" characters such as Hannibal Lector, and Jason Vorhees, since Jigsaw is really a 21st century horror icon and not really one of the great classics. Somebody want to confirm/change this for me? I'm not 100% sure how to change that template.

Also, Chucky, Ghostface, and Freddy Krueger should also be moved into the Modern Horror Icons, since they were spawned in the 1980s and 1990s. I think what determines whether something is "classic" or not is based on it's age [Alfred Hitchock's Psycho Killer being the youngest Classic Horror Icon [1950s?] and everyone else coming before that. It seems the judgement between which characters were "Classic" or "Modern" was made by a fanboy, who simply took the killers he liked and made them Classic. I'm sure Leatherface would be ashamed of this biased judgement. ARBlackwood 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure when Leatherface uses his laptop and looks up his article on Wikipedia he'd be devastated at this unfair judgement. Then he'd run around hooting and hollering, carve up the door with his chainsaw only to have Drayton Sawyer come in and scream, "You damn fool! Look what you did to the door!"--CyberGhostface 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
They are in the "Modern". The "Modern" title sits in the middle of two rows. If we were to line them up it would be adjacent to them, but that would make for a very long table. Everyone from "The Creature" to "The Wolf Man" are in Classic, and everyone from "Norman Bates" to "Jason Voorhees" is in the Modern. There are 4 row, 2 rows for each category. We had to break them up because they were too long. Bignole 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I see it has been fixed. Good work wikipedians! ARBlackwood 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Victims

I removed the victims section. It seemed sloppy and tacked on. I think it'd be better suited for the Saw movie pages than Jigsaw's.--CyberGhostface 14:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

life before death

shud there be something about his life before jigsaw? how he was a toy maker and his trademark doll (called billy) is what he made? id add it myself but im lazy :D—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.201.169 (talk • contribs)

Morality

Kramer`s Philosophy - Nothing more than a pathetic cover for murder and revenge to his oppressors and enemies. All victims of a maniac were doomed from the start (Amanda is an exception). Nobody is able to leave his traps alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.49.253.35 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of this "Not really a serial killer" thing. He poisons people and refuses to give them antidote, HELLO, felony murder? He cuts the throat of a police officer (who barely survives), and kills another with a load of shotguns. But no, "not really a serial killer". He poisons someone who is forced to (try to) kill a family, chains another to a pipe and never lets him go because he missed one obscure unknown chance to live... Someone needs to change that part. // Gargaj 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No one's excusing his actions. No one has said he's a nice person. But the film has referred to the fact several times that he is not a serial killer in the traditional sense. If you can't see that, that's your problem.--CyberGhostface 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's an opinion shared by a few sympathetic characters, including Jigsaw himself, a specific point of view. It would probably not be the point of view of a person in law enforcement. Looking at the serial killer page, he fits the profile of a highly organized, mission oriented serial killer. He has killed much more than three people, and playing and toying with them doesn't really change that he was the one who killed them. It's not a moral thing, it's a NPOV thing. - Xtreme680 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the line.--CyberGhostface 20:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason it's says "not really a seral killer" is because jigsaw himself believes that he is not a serial killer. He belives he never killed anyone. Not that this is true it is just what he believes....and it is his movie. UnReaL 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)UnReaLUnReaL 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (Christina)

There's also a line in the first film by Lawrence Gordon where he states a similar hypothesis.--CyberGhostface 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jigsaw, in technicality, is not serial killer. He sets the people up in life or death situations. It is up to the person to decide whether they can bear X-amount of pain in order to save their own lives. Also, he states everything that a person needs to know in order to live. Take, for example, Obi in the furnace. Jigsaw said that the only way out of Hell is through the devil. Had Obi actually looked around the inside of the furnace, he would have seen the emergency shut-off valve. But no, none of the people ever decide to think about the approach, just the ending. The only one that Jigsaw is convictable of killing is the guy in the beginning of Saw III b/c of the bomb in the room. All other deaths are at fault b/c the victim(for lack of a better word), is to scared to inflict pain upon themselves to live. -posted by A Really Analytical Movie Lover 7 Oct. 2006

If you put someone in a a death trap that will kill them if they don't do something, and it kills them, its your fault. Besides, with the exception of Amanda most of his victims had to mutilate their bodies to survive. --DrBat 14:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides that, given that the traps involve self-mutilation he's still guilty of assault and battery by proxy and attempted murder, even if the victim survives. Iceberg3k 11:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
He hasn't killed anyone (with the obvious exception of his traps), but he has TRIED. He attempted to slash Tapp's throat. Also, he didn't even give Jeff (from the first movie) an escape plan, just said he was part of an experiment of something much bigger than him or something like that... JackOfHearts 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it all depends on your point of view, and No: I don't believe that Jigsaw perfectly fits the discription of a serial killer. But Yes: Because his actions have interfered with people's lives (and resulted in their deaths), he would be considered a serial killer. The only difference between Jigsaw and other serial killers is that the others have the one major characteristic that actually makes them a killer: the intent of killing their victims. Jigsaw has never intended to kill his victims. Jigsaw views the actual "kill" as a failure on his victim's part, and that is actually an arguable point because of the intentions that he has (or more literally, doesn't have). --Majinvegeta 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason it says that, as has been mentioned, is because Jigsaw himself says he isn't one, and so does Lawrence. The traps that killed people, such as that bomb one - were made by Amanda, and if you remember, Jigsaw did not condone that, because then they are just victims. Yes, he did try to kill Tapp, and yes, he almost killed Jeff, but he didn't, and so he couldn't be prosecuted for murder there, and that is what the topic is about, no? Calvin 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even by legal definition he is still a murderer. 1st degree murder is defines as

'The person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not'

'A person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being or'

'A person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.'

Thannad (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say that i think the premise of Jigsaw's philosophy is very interesting. That said, i'm surprised that we've seen victims and converts in the Saw series but not people who outright reject Jigsaw's philosophy by providing an alternative. For example, my own belief is that people who aren't willing to kill people outside of self-defense are not in fact inferior humans for rising above the survival instinct, as Jigsaw believes. In fact, i believe that such people are the most admirable of all in that they are truly altruistic: they are unwilling to sacrifice their principles by becoming killers, even in the face of death. These are the people i trust to make society better, not those who would kill anyone in order to survive. Ironically, Jigsaw might be making the world worse off by forcing the truly selfless to die, only leaving behind those willing to do evil in order to survive in his wake. That can't be good for society. Webspidrman 05:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.225.172 (talk)

Image

Shouldn't the image of him, at least in the lead, be with his mask? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the pig mask? Thats down later in the article.--CyberGhostface 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No, rather, I mean the puppet. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There's already an image of the puppet below as well, although it's a little grainy...JackOfHearts 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Its supposed to be grainy...its based off a poster from Saw and thats the feeling they were trying to convey.--CyberGhostface 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant to say that it should be in the lead in place of the picture of him, I'd say that's what people most identity Jigsaw Killer with. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is more or less an article focusing on him (John Kramer),so I think the picture of him should be the head display pic. If it were an article about the puppet (Which would be awesome), Billy, or whatever his name is, then yes, I would suggest putting the pic of the puppet...JackOfHearts 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the main image show feature jigsaw in his pig mask - the image is a spoiler!. Will Tingle 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No one can verify that he ever wore the pigmask. The only time we some any take off the mask is when Amanda takes it off, and since we know that Amanda has been working with him since before he every kidnapped Adam and Gordon, we don't know for sure if he ever wore the mask. John Kramer is Jigsaw, the image should be John Kramer. If people come to this page and don't know that John Kramer is Jigsaw, then that's just tough luck. Wikipedia is not censored, even for those that don't want to ruin movies for themselves by accidentally clicking something they have no business clicking till they watch the film.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 
There were two pig masks in the lair, so I'd think that he probably wore it at least once. Although I agree that Jigsaw's main pic is better suited as him unmasked.--CyberGhostface 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A few questions

When is it revealed that the puppet is named "Billy", out of curiosity? And how did you know it was Amanda's former drug dealer who was in the cell with her? JackOfHearts 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think John worked at a toy factory and Billy was one of his puppets...Billy has been the name referred to by the creators on the DVD. I think its more of an injoke than anything else, but it its legit.
As for Amanda and her drug dealer...I don't know, I'm not the one who added it. My best guess is that its explained on one of the documentaries on the Saw DVD.--CyberGhostface 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jigs

Saying that Jigsaw is 'affectionately called Jigs' is not only innaccurate (what fans have said that? I've seen maybe one or two) fancruft, POV and irrevelant. I'm sure someone right now is calling Leatherface "Leathypoo" but I don't see anyone adding bullshit like that to the article...--CyberGhostface 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

I think the traps shouldn't be on this page, but rather have their own article, named something like "List of Traps in the Saw Series." In my opinion, they are a little off-topic; however, mentioning one or two traps to show his "genius" is OK. Anyone agree? SuperDT 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I'll try splitting it today if I can.--CyberGhostface 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. List of Saw Traps I've also modified the Saw template a bit.--CyberGhostface 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Influences?

Are there any serial killers similar to Jigsaw? If so, they should be put in the article. SuperDT 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of.--CyberGhostface 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I add that the serial killer in the Italian movie called The Bloodstained Shadow (Solamente Nero) wears a black cloak very similar to Jigsaw's? Avanze 11:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think I heard about a killer that Jigsaw was based off of, that killer lived in some southern state like Kentucky or something. Majin Hannibal Lecter

yes i belive there was a killer that Jigsaw was based off of. He was never caught and a differece between the two were that this killer would pick up any random person (man, women, child) and place them in elaberate puzzles.

...and you heard this where?--CyberGhostface 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/serial_killer_movies/5.html (sorry dont know how to make smaller links) in crime library it says he wasnt excatly based on any killer. This is just my opinion, but i think some of Jigsaw influence (mostly how he tortured people) comes from H.H. holmes, Holmes did built a hotel with torture equipments like gas chambers and other torture devices. Korn1128

Traps section?

In the Jigsaw's apprentice paragraph it states "For more details, see the Traps section". I think it should be specified that Traps is an actual Wikipedia article and the text should be linked to it. When i first read it I thought that Traps was a paragraph in this article and that it had been removed because I couldn't find it. --XezzeX 23:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It was removed, but I'll modify it if it hasn't been already.--CyberGhostface 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

--It seems it still isn't their. Can someone add it? It was well written and an intristing article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.1.45 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it. And if we were to put it back up, some overzealous editor would just nominate it for deletion again and the cycle would continue.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Should the article's title remain as it is, or should it perhaps be renamed to The Jigsaw Killer? PlatformerMastah 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The title maybe, but not the actual page name.--CyberGhostface 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What more can be added?

Someone wants this article expanded, but what more can be added, at least until the third movie comes out? JackOfHearts 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the "expanded" just so people would be encouraged to seek out some more sources for information about Jigsaw (i.e. The writer's concept of him..just more details) Bignole 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Final Test

I beleive that the Final Test does not belong on Jigsaw's page... but rather Saw's page. I would do it but i thought it would be better to get other's opinion first...

Why? It is afterall his last test, an important part of Jigsaw's history. Why would you put it on the page for Saw? The first movie has next to nothing to do with the final test. JackOfHearts 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned Wilson Steel Warehouse

It lists that as his location, but is that really accurate? I thought it had changed since the second film to some other abandoned warehouse...

Nope, it's the same warehouse. SuperDT 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If that were so, how is it possible that Rigg and Kerry wouldn't think to return following the events of Saw 2? The warehouse in the third one had one level, and had a large room where Jigsaw's equipment layed, and another larger section where Jeff went through his tests... The warehouse in the second didn't seem the same as the third one. And what about the one from the first one? JackOfHearts 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing one room, or one angle from the outside of a building, doesn't denote how large it actually could be, or what other buildings may or may not be attached to it. Also, his location shouldn't be the place where his victims are, but the place where he stays. Thus, it should be the city in which he resides, because he kind of moves from place to place. It's clear he isn't in the same warehouse he was in during Saw II as he is in during Saw III. So, if you know the city that he is located it use that; until then I'm removing the entire section till it can be properly filled. Bignole 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Victims?

I think that this is up for debate if Jigsaw's "victims" are actually victims. I think the morality of this depends on the point of view because I wouldn't consider Johns "victims" as victims. He is the instrument of their deaths, but essentially......yes, Jigsaw's right, they do kill themselves. I heard him refer to them as "Subjects" in Saw II, and I think that would be a better term to use for them. Thoughts?

First off, I'm a big Jigsaw fan myself, but we can't change the article to fit our personal opinions (as you did in your recent edit). I think its fine the way it is; it describes exactly what Jigsaw does (I.E. place people in traps that lead to their deaths unless they are clever enough to escape, sometimes having to commit mutilation) but in Jigsaw's favor, we include why he thinks the way he does and why to him his motives are justified. Saying that he makes 'brilliant' traps and that its debatable that he's a killer shouldn't be there.
Also, I removed your line about John's attempted suicide as thats brought up later in the same section.--CyberGhostface 14:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whole article is a spoiler

This entire article is a spoiler (spoils the first Saw movie) - especially the infobox picture. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules, so I've moved it (along with the actor's name). ··gracefool |☺ 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What rules does it break? The one that says Wikipedia contains spoilers? I mean if the movie was recent I might agree (although it is stupid to look at a Wikipedia article if you don't want to be spoiled) but its two to three years old now.--CyberGhostface 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead

Jigsaw may be dead, he may be alive, but the third film did not show him as "dead". He was definitely dying, but he didn't pass away yet. For all we know Jeff could do something to prolong his life long enough to save his daughter. All of this is irrelevant as the character is fictional. Per MOS for writing about fiction, you do not treat fictional characters like real people, they do not get biographies on their life.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Name Change?

I was just wondering if "Jigsaw killer" is the best name for this page. I mean, What about: John "Jigsaw" Kramer, or something; because technically speaking "Jigsaw" in Saw 2 and 3 is actually 2 people, Amanda and John (even though John was the original). --Majinvegeta 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, she helped in 1-3, remember she was really the one in the pig mask that grabbed Gordon and the other guy. Anyway, she only helped, and was never "Jigsaw". She tried to be him, but she couldn't live up to what he wanted; she even cheated in her own games.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with changing it.
For one thing...Amanda. She was NEVER referred to as Jigsaw at all in the series. She helped Jigsaw, and worked for him and tried becoming his apprentice, but she never took on his mantle or ever went under that name. If John were to die and for the next couple of films it was her and her alone going under the Jigsaw moniker I'd agree. But it wasn't.
Although John doesn't care for the name, it IS the name he is most used by. In interviews, with his action figure and even in the film he is largely referred to as Jigsaw. Its not like Francis Dolarhyde being called the Tooth Fairy. John Kramer, for all intents and purposes, is Jigsaw.
Another point of interest: In A Series of Unfortunate Events there was a villain called the Hook-Handed Man. I don't recall him ever calling himself that, it was mostly the author due to the hooks he had. In a later story, his name was revealed. There was some discussion to change it to the real name, but in the end, the original article was kept, mainly because that's the name he's most known by.--CyberGhostface 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

There seems to be some unnecessary repetition about the jigsaw-shaped piece of flesh taken from the victims, at the end of the section called Jigsaw, and through the majority of Name origin. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He Doesn't Call Himself Jigsaw?

I'm just wondering if that should be called into question in the article. In the first film, when Adam finds the picture of Gordon's family gagged in his wallet, the picture is signed with a Jigsaw symbol. This seems to contradict Jigsaw's claim he doesn't refer to himself as such. The Clawed One 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the second film? This is brought up. Matthews asks Jigsaw about the name, and Jigsaw responds that puzzle piece is supposed to represent the piece that people are missing. The name itself was coined by the media.--CyberGhostface 02:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen all 3 films, several times, thank you, that's why I brought up the issue. Because he signed the picture with a Jigsaw piece, showing he himself at least accepts the name. You did nothing to answer my question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Clawed One (talk • contribs) 03:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Maybe you aren't listening then. Using a puzzle piece as a signature does not mean that he endorses the name Jigsaw. The REASON why he uses the puzzle pieces is to symbolize the pieces people are missing. It DOES not mean that he calls himself Jigsaw...that is something the media coined. And making speculative theories on the article saying "He uses a puzzle piece for a signature, thus saying that he endorses the name counts as original research. Understand?--CyberGhostface 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So, signing my name "Adrian" does not mean I call myself Adrian? As stated, I've seen the films, I know why he cut out the pieces, the whole "survival instinct" thing the subjects were missing. And I never added anything about this to the article, so I don't know why you're mad at me. I'm just saying that it seems like he does at least embrace the name somewhat: he may not have started calling himself that, but it seems like he does now. In the future, when someone brings up something for discussion, please try not to be so condescending about the matter. The Clawed One 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Jigsaw never signed his name 'Jigsaw'. He used a puzzle piece as his signature. Not the same thing as you signing your name Adrian and that not being your real name. Lets say I use a pumpkin to sign my name because I like the symbol, and the papers call me "The Pumpkinhead Killer" and pretty soon its accepted that I'm to be called "Pumpkinhead". If I were to say "I don't encourage that name" thats not me being contradictory, even if I did use the pumpkin a signature piece. And he's never used the name in any of the films himself. I've never gotten the impression that he hates the name, but he's always gone by John.
As for me being condescending and/or rude, I tried being relatively civil in my original post where I was trying to be helpful in explaining about Jigsaw's signature.I answered your question to the best of my abilities, and it WAS the answer to your question, and you got rather snippy at me with "You did nothing to answer my question". Thats why I was a bit aggravated in the following reply.--CyberGhostface 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jigsawkiller.jpg

Image:Jigsawkiller.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Saw IV fills in more of Jigsaw's backstory, contradicting much of what was revealed in Saw: Rebirth.

This line is disputed whether this is WP:NOR or not. I think it reaches too far in making an original conclusion based on interpreting the stories. I tried rewording it to simply say "It's a different story" but CyberGhostface disagrees. Starting topic here so that the WP:THIRD can give his/her input. hbdragon88 02:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how it counts as original research. The two sources discussed are both reliable (one is an officially licensed comicbook, the other is a film) and they both contradict each other. Saying "It tells a different story" and "It contradicts Rebirth" are both pretty much the same thing except the latter is more specific. It would be original research if someone attempted to explain the continuity error and make their own hypothesis to fit the two together. Stating that the second released work contradicts the continuity of the first is simple fact.--CyberGhostface 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
But an alternate storyline doesn't necessarily contradict the first. It could be just that; that doesn't make it contradictory. P.S thanks for explaining the letter on the Amanda Young article. hbdragon88 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw this on the "third opinion" page. If the existence of the contradictions requires interpretation by the viewer then it can be considered 'original research.' Not all viewers will interpret the same way. If no interpretation is needed to determine that there are contradictions then it is not original research. So for you 'Saw' students you might want to refer to things like 'Star Wars' to see how these things are settled, since that license crosses film, books, comics, etc. and has similar issues. Rob Banzai 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess its not worth arguing about anymore. I'll say that Saw IV had a different history than Rebirth's.--CyberGhostface 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, it now says "Saw IV fills in more of Jigsaw's backstory, telling a different story than what was revealed in Rebirth."--CyberGhostface 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jigsawonbedwithwax.PNG

Image:Jigsawonbedwithwax.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoffman

Nothing in the Saw series indicates that Hoffman is the 2nd or 1st apprentice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico92400 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear at the end of Saw IV. That's not to say that they're going to pull the rug from under the fans in V, but considering he was working with Amanda and Jigsaw during the events of III at least and were helping them with the traps it seems pretty clear that he is. Of course, maybe he's poisoned like Zep, but there's nothing to indicate that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Was just thinking that it seems odd calling Amanda the 1st and Hoffman the 2nd as there's no definitive proof that Hoffman was recruited 2nd. Perhaps I'm misreading it but maybe they should just be called apprentices.Agent452 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Change it if you want.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Kramer or John Kramer?

At the top, it says he's introduced as Jonathan Kramer. (Is that accurate?) Elsewhere in the film series, and indeed, the article, he's listed as John Kramer. John and Jonathan are different names, with "Jon" being the abbreviation of Jonathan... Should this be changed to "John?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.212.89 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In an interview, Tobin Bell said his full name is Johnathan Kramer.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's stated by one of the characters in the fourth movie as well. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The credits of all four movies have always listed the character as "John/Jigsaw," as do the production notes on the Lions Gate website, so why would one interview with an actor be enough to retcon what the movies have established? I could understand it if Leigh Whannell or somebody involved with the writing process said his real name was Jonathan, but as far as I know, Tobin Bell and Wikipedia are the only references to that name. MattSutton1 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Johnathan instead of John is hardly a 'retcon'. Its not a drastic change that contradicts the films.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I misspoke called it a retcon. I actually don't really think it's all that big a deal if "John" was short for "Jonathan." I just don't think "Jonathan" should be accepted as canon unless it's stated in one of the movies. MattSutton1 (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to change it, go ahead. Maybe Tobin's take could be mentioned in his respective section. --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tobin Bell Section

Tobin Bell was quoted without a reference. With no citation, how is one to know that he really said those things? Deleted. Kind regards, Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Johnkramersawii.PNG

Image:Johnkramersawii.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New Picture?

I think that we should put a new picture of John up. The one where he is hooded just doesn't seem like Jigsaw to me. Sure, he wears it for 5 minutes in Saw, and in Saw 2 he wears it, but he doesn't wear the hood, but 95% of the time you see him he is in normal clothes (even though thats mostly in flashbacks). I'm just saying maybe we can find a different picture of Jigsaw. Moenbro (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think wearing the hood is still representative of Jigsaw even if he's not wearing it all the time. Obviously he's not going to be wearing it when he's on his deathbed or in Pre-Jigsaw flashbacks but its still for the most part what he's most recognized by. (And although this is WP:CRYSTAL on my part, he'll probably wear the cloak in future flashbacks)--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rigg?

Should Rigg be added to the list of Jigsaw's relationships? The head detective in IV states that Rigg was being "recruited" by Jigsaw as a successor. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that was his personal guess, and perhaps if Rigg was successful he might have been Jigsaw's protege, but it was never made clear if that was Jigsaw's initial intentions.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Jigsaws smart enough to know that Rigg wouldn't go for that. He isn't the type who could help kill people or set them 'free'.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a killer by definition?

Another editor keeps deleting my edit on this point. This is going to require more discussion. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed several different times, he does not kill nor murder, he finds ways for them to kill themselves. They can escape, a murderer would not let you escape, in any way, shape, or form. --HELLØ ŦHERE 05:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I now took partial wording from the main franchise page to "help" people understand. --HELLØ ŦHERE 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The material that I deleted is a violation of WP:OR in that it's not cited to a reliable source - an accurate source on what makes one a killer. Simply saying he's not a killer doesn't make it true. Furthermore, it requires novel moral theorizing and abstraction to conclude he's not a killer. Indeed, by virtually every criminal standard in every legal system, if you put someone in circumstances that you know could/might likely lead to their death, it's at minimum "manslaughter" if they die and that is indeed a form of killing. And in any case, this material is non-encylopedic fancruft - see WP:FAC. Very few people in the real world would deny that a criminal named the "Jigsaw Killer" who does what this character does, if done in real life, is a killer. To try parsing beyond this to get at the "meaning" of the character is fancruft and also it's original research. If other editors persist in re-inserting this material without addressing these points, this will certainly escalate to a WP:RFC and possibly arbitration. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a consensus that he isn't a killer/murderer/whatever you'd like to call it. And, he doesn't use the name "Jigsaw Killer" which it specifically states. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

216 explains his position in detail (please reply in your own sub-para)

I disagree that there's a "consensus" on this point. Also, if there previously were, I am shifting the dynamic with this thread. Further, it's not possible to have a valid consensus if the end-result violates WP:OR and/or WP:FAC. I therefore ask that others please address these points I raise in regards to these guidelines. Also, please answer me only on this page regarding this article. And when you post to me here, please allow me a reasonable time to answer before you conclude I'm not answering. A post on my talk page [1] implies that I delayed excessively in replying here. However, a check of the respective time stamps will show that I did indeed reply with reasonable promptness.

Answering the "Kramer's not a killer" premise

Here is a link [2] showing the edit history differential in question. Specifically, I contend that this phrase: "[h]is work did not make him a killer by definition." is original research in that attempts to make an expert assessment ("by definition") but does not cite a WP:RS to make that expert asseesment.

I further contend it's a WP:OR violation in that the assessment it makes is novel; it flies in the face of the generally accepted understanding of what a killer is. For proof, I offer Merriam-Webster:

Killer - "One who kills"

and

Kill - "To deprive of life : cause the death".

Now as you can see, this entire argument boils down to whether or not the character "Jonathan Kramer" is indeed "causing" the death of the victims who he traps in his machinations.

Let's review the irrefutable facts:

a) Kramer's actions are intentional
b) The victims are placed into Kramer's machinations [3] by Kramer intentionally
c) If the victim fails to escape, death results.

The validity of the "Kramer's not a killer" thesis rises and falls on the premise that Kramer must be all-knowing - for if not, the ostensible premise of Kramer's traps (that as designed, they are escapable by the victim for whom they've been customized) can't be known.

If Kramer is not all-knowing, he can't possibly know whether or not each trapee can indeed muster the wherewithal to escape. And further, as evidenced by the fact that some indeed do not escape, we can only conclude:

a) Kramer's knowledge of the victim's ability/desire was imperfect and he was wrong to think they could escape.

or

b) Kramer's knowledge of each victim's ability/desire was perfect and therefore Kramer knew certains ones would fail - hence, he knew they'd die.

Obviously, if it's "b", Kramer, having put them in the trap, is the cause of their death and is by definition a killer.

So then, what about "a"? If Kramer's knowledge of each victim's ability is imperfect, it cannot be rationally argued that the victim was responsible for his/her death. Why? Because Kramer's character, if having imperfect knowledge, can't be sure that espcape was possible. And without a definate certainty that each victim could indeed escape, we are left to speculate regarding the central conjectured moral premise of the film which is essentially if the victim wanted life badly enough, they would have lived.

And I am not arguing against this abstract precept. Rather, I am arguing the very fact that some die in Kramer's machinations forces us to boil the Kramer equation down to its essential, which is the degree of perfection of Kramer's knowledge of each trapee's ability/desire. If Kramer had imperfect knowledge, then he had no assurance and therefore we have no assurance that escape by any particular victim from a particular trap is possible. We can't therefore conclude "Kramer's not a killer". "Not" is an absoute statement which requires definate certainty and we don't have that if Kramer's knowledge was imperfect. And of course, if Kramer's knowledge is perfect, he would have known that some would fail and he'd therefore clearly be a killer - because under this premise, he put the victim in a personalized inescapable trap which caused death.

The bottom line for me is that the sentence I oppose advances an esoteric distnction regarding Kramer's culpability which we are in no position to render as we are not experts on culpability and have not cited any experts who have rendered a view of Kramer's culpability. And because no expert view is involved (itself a WP:OR violation), this point of "killer, not killer" is essentially fancruft (WP:FAC). Not only that but, the "Kramer's not a killer" position, beause it ignores the binary question of the perfection of Kramer's knowledge of each victims ability/desire, completely skips over the "a, b" breakdown I show above.

Suffice it to say, an honest reading of Kramer's character could conclude that Kramer doesn't consider himself a killer. But what Kramer considers himself is not the same as whether or not he's culpable from a definitional standpoint. As Wikipedians, we must be rigorously intellectually honest in our edits. And in this instance, if we write "[d]id not make him a killer by definition.", the absolute nature of the "not" in that sentence can't be honestly supported by the information available to us regarding the Kramer character - not unless we want to stretch our reasoning to esoteric fancruft lengths - and that's not permissible. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworded a little. Tell me what you think. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's much less bad than before, but still needs a lot of work as it still verges on "fancruft" in that it pseudo-glorifies/validates Kramer's perspective. I need to think about this some more - perhaps for a few days at least. I'll post some thoughts on this page ASAP. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... He's as much a murderer as Manson. Manson didn't know that his band of groupies would actually kill the targets, but sent them to do so. Think of it in a real-life scenario. If some guy was picking people from the world, putting them through traps that they had a possibility of escaping out of but sometimes they didn't - then yes, he would legally be a murderer and a serial killer. He puts people through lethal dvices that have the ability to kill the victim, and he has knowledge of that. It's not manslaughter, it's murder, plain and simple. He was responsible for their lives, held the strings, and put them in that situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.12 (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vigilante ?

I noticed that this page for the Jigsaw Killer is listed under the category of "Fictional Vigilantes". I don't really think Jigsaw counts as a vigilante seeing how vigilante's are people who go after criminals and wrong-doers while Jigsaw just goes after people he believes are wasting their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.202.93 (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I think that's been there for a while. I'm not sure of its reasoning, but the best I can presume is that because he feels they are "wrong doers" and "criminals". Not only by wasting their lives, but he does catch some of them actually breaking the law, and in his own way, he's 'bringing them to justice'. I'm 50/50 on this. Let's wait to see if anyone else has anything to say. --HELLØ ŦHERE 09:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical Recption

Seeing as the entire series has received mixed reviews, why does the critical reception only contain positive remarks? Shouldn't it be mixed? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I could only find positive remarks. Even the critics I read that slammed Saw IV and V as awful movies, still praised the character of Jigsaw (such as the one referenced from the Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies). But if you or anyone else can find a critic that made negative remarks about the portrayal and substance of the character specifically (criticising the films in general is not relevant to this article - the focus on the character only here), then of course add it to the article and cite the source. This is not a fan site. Citation of negative comments should be added if anyone finds any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.178.156 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I meant for this to apply to the series it's self, but I guess the same goes for Jigsaw as well. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This page needs a disambiguation, google search for Jigsaw leads to whatever this is... not a Jigsaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athomsfere (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with Google. Mike Allen 02:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware, but there should be a link to a disambiguation page for Jigsaw, Jigsaw (Movie killer) etc to get users to the right page, since Google leads here to an obscure character of a horror flick. Athomsfere (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually there is already a disambiguation page for Jigsaw. Apparently more people are looking for the Jigsaw Killer when typing Jigsaw into Google. We can't help what page Google shows. Mike Allen 03:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah google bases its results on hits. If you type Jigsaw puzzle and this comes up you might have a caseDarkwarriorblake (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

His name is simply Jigsaw

I just wanna make it clear that his name in the film is "Jigsaw". In the beginning portion of the first article it reads Jigsaw Killer, he is only called this by some cops but his name is Jigsaw. Im sure its listed on IMDB that way as well.68.96.45.79 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah through all the films he's called "Jigsaw". Even critics just call him "Jigsaw", not "Jigsaw Killer". I propose a move. —Mike Allen 01:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Jigsaw Killer → Jigsaw (Saw) — The character is never identified solely by "Jigsaw Killer" in the Saw films; he's simply named just "Jigsaw". It's only in the media (in the films) that he's called the "Jigsaw Killer". "The Jigsaw Killer strikes again.." Even in the real world media, such as critics, he's just called "Jigsaw". —Mike Allen 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I concur. A name like Jigsaw killer does not do if he's not even referred to as it, it could even refer to this character. − Jhenderson 777 16:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Support per above and WP:COMMONNAME.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Support Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
How about Jigsaw (Saw character) since there are other characters named Jigsaw. —Mike Allen 07:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I still prefer Jigsaw (Saw), most Wikipedic of all the names. But it's up to you. − Jhenderson 777 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not "Jigsaw Killer", as that is not his name. I'm fine with "Jigsaw (Saw)" or "Jigsaw (Saw character)". It is important to note that the "Saw" in "Jigsaw (Saw)" would be italicized, indicating that it is the title of either a book or film and thus negating the issue of it being used as a descriptor for a tool. We write for 7th graders (at least we're supposed to) and that's basic grammar from well before the 7th grade.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Italics should never be used as a way to distinguish two similar titles. Powers T 21:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Italics are not technically possible as a distinct descriptor from the non-italicized form. The wikilink does not take italics, unless you want the title to be "Jigsaw (''Saw'')" which doesn't seem to work: Jigsaw (''Saw'') 65.93.12.93 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If it's not possible, then why does "Halloween" appear italicized in the article title for Michael Myers (Halloween)? Anyone that gets confused when searching can easily read a hatnote placed at the top of the page saying "For the carpentry tool see ...." So, the idea of it getting confused is a moot point regardless because that's the reason we created "Other uses" hatnotes for articles...for when people get confused.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"Saw character" is fine by me. 65.93.12.93 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad form closing the move request after only two days -- and by someone who participated in the discussion, no less. Powers T 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The result is pretty much snowball keepish. Only two opposes. But you're right I suppose. I did kind of crystall ball it. Keep going with the debate. − Jhenderson 777 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't resist doing something I shouldn't, I suppose. Anyways the name of the article can stay unless the result is a turnaround. − Jhenderson 777 20:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Two opposes means there's a snowball's chance in hell of there being no consensus for a move? That's absurd. Powers T 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, Lt Power and assume good faith. I think we need to delete this part of the information and act like it never happened and go back to voting. − Jhenderson 777 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
In this case it's just common sense that this a wrong name even if people voted keep or how many days the consensus is. It's not the common name or hardly a alias of him at all. − Jhenderson 777 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

@Jhenderson, you're supposed to wait 7 days for consensus. I really don't know what to do now.. —Mike Allen 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you not know what to do? I have the name right back where it was. − Jhenderson 777 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this can be closed now. Also somehow we need to direct the link to the actual peer review if somebody knows how to do that.; − Jhenderson 777 17:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ALL survivors were originally written to be apprentices

In the original script for Saw 3D, it ended with the survivor meeting and all the survivors individually saying "he helped me". Dr. Gordon's tape was extended to tell him to "gather the others" and make sure his work lived on. The movie was supposed to end with all the survivors going out and continuing Jigsaw's work, and they always have been helping since they survived. I feel this needs to be added to the "apprentice" section. The problem is, the only source to this information was on the House of Jigsaw boards, which is now taken down. If anybody bought a script from Raybin Management, they can confirm this.

72.241.15.61 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Power tool

I was looking for the Jigsaw (power tool) article, and I saw Jigsaw (Saw), I thought "cool, the article about the actual saw". Wrong. I don't see a way to fix it all though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jigsaw_(Saw_character)/Archive_1&oldid=1083518100"