MovieChat Forums > Saw (2004) Discussion > Jigsaw is in fact a murderer.

Jigsaw is in fact a murderer.

posted 9 years ago by tueher86
22 replies | jump to latest

In Saw 3 he elaborates that he doesn't condone murder and he despises them.

But in Saw 1 he clearly violates that.

Adam was given a key to escape in the bathtub but he was never told about the game or his chance to escape. The key was set up in a way in which he would most likely lose in the drain.

When Jigsaw wakes up at the end, he walks out and closes the door leaving Adam to die a slow death of hunger, dehydration, or from the gunshot wound.

So...as Jigsaw he orchestrated Adam's kidnapping, had him chained to a room, then locked him in to die. That is pretty much premeditated murder so Jigsaw is a hypocrite when he punishes Amanda for being a murderer even though she clearly deserved it too.

[–] silenthill_eternal 9 years ago

Agreed. And that's not even the least of it. He also tried to kill 2 cops in the first movie. And putting people in situations where they will likely die (since most of them do) is the same as murder. I hate how the sequels try to justify it and humanize Jigsaw, the only way I can accept it is realizing Jigsaw must in fact be certifiably insane; he has to be to cling so tightly to his ideals and the justifications of such. But I can't deny it's like the writers steadily make Jigsaw out to be "the good guy" while everyone else sucks and are murderers, while he alone is a saint.

[–] Totemkauf 9 years ago

Not technically murder, but the same on every other level. Tying Adam up and the guy who had Amanda's key in him with the possibility of them being killed is just as bad as him doing it himself.

[–] Moonlighty 8 years ago

It is still murder. You can't push someone in front of a bus and say the bus did it/they had a split second chance to get away so it's their fault they didntl

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Flight_of_Fantasy 8 years ago

Not technically murder

It's definitely technically murder. At least in America (and probably many other countries), if you orchestrate a murder, but don't carry it out yourself, you're still a murderer.

For example, Charles Manson is a convicted murderer, even though he never actually killed anyone; he got his "family" to do it for him. But since he masterminded the murders, the law considers him to have killed those people, just as much as the family members who did the actual killing.

Peter, is your social worker in that horse?

[–] bwny85 8 years ago

Same thing as if you hire a hitman and don't carry out the murder yourself.

[–] PopcornLobotomy 8 years ago

Not technically murder

Tell it to Charles Manson's lawyer!

Popcorn Lobotomy Reviews: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6_Wyo8pxbH9bJt1vptBzGA

[–] wrathofachilles 9 years ago

Of course he is. The fact that there are people who argue he isn't is more disturbing than any of the traps in the movies.

[–] Shaw_shank 9 years ago

He commits far more murders and attempted murders than that. He tried to kill Tapp. His booby traps killed Sing, so he killed him. If Amanda's bear trap went off he'd have killed her. He poisoned a guy. And if Zepp had killed Gordon's family he'd have been a conspirator. Or maybe even have gotten all the blame, because Zepp could argue he had no choice because John poisoned him.

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 8 years ago

He commits far more murders and attempted murders than that. He tried to kill Tapp. His booby traps killed Sing, so he killed him. If Amanda's bear trap went off he'd have killed her. He poisoned a guy. And if Zepp had killed Gordon's family he'd have been a conspirator. Or maybe even have gotten all the blame, because Zepp could argue he had no choice because John poisoned him.

This. I agree, he IS a murderer. He puts all of these incidents in motion, knowing the results and he built the traps himself.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

[–] conanyouredevilish 9 years ago

Jigsaw is a straight up serial killer and his reasoning for not being a murderer is ridiculous. By Jigsaw's reasoning, a person who ties people to railroad tracks and have them run over by a train isn't a murderer because the train was what did the killing. Or a person who breaks another person's leg, locks them in a room in the top floor of a burning building isn't a murderer because the burning building killed them. Or a person who locks them in a cage with poisonous creatures isn't a murderer because the animals did the killing.

Those above examples are people not being directly killed, just being placed a position where they're going to get killed and Jigsaw is no different. Plus there's that guy who was injected with poison unless he plays a along, and if he didn't he would've died. How is that not straight up direct murder if the person said no?

[–] LucasCorradi (87) 6 years ago

I think the most scary thing of all is that Tobin Bell (actor who plays jigsaw) says on interviews that he is not a killer because he provides choices bal bla bla.. but its interesting to know that 90% of the traps he launches are practicaly impossible to evade even if the victim really tries. And where the fuck are his sense of morals anyway? In Saw 6 he kidnaps a guy because he SMOKES.. fuck off

[–] toomuchfruitforonepieceo 8 years ago

I guess his argument (a the difference between Jigsaw and other examples given in this thread) is that he doesn't do it with the intent to kill. I'm not arguing that he isn't a murderer because, under law, he is.

[–] the_badman_xxx 8 years ago

The one that always bothered me, and kept me from watching the rest, was the little girl at the end of Saw 3. I thought Jigsaw didn't victimize innocents? Yet, that little girl is now going to starve to death in a room alone.Nope, Saw is a *beep* franchise.

Vegan:For the animals, for the environment, for the people, and for my own conscience

[–] kobold-23 8 years ago

The one that always bothered me, and kept me from watching the rest, was the little girl at the end of Saw 3. I thought Jigsaw didn't victimize innocents? Yet, that little girl is now going to starve to death in a room alone.Nope, Saw is a *beep* franchise.

Then you clearly didn't watch Saw 1. Because Dr Gordon's daughter and his wife would have been killed by Zepp, had he failed his game ( killing Adam ). Zepp's game was explained in Saw 1 ( Jigsaw even asked if he would be able to kill a girl ).

The little girl at the end of Saw 3 was just a pawn for Jeff's ( her father ) game, just like Gordon's wife and daughter were pawns. Every Saw movie had pawns like that. This is nothing new.

You just fell for Jigsaw's BS logic ( that he doesn't "kill" people ), lol. Jigsaw is a freaking pyscho and killer and you're actually saying he didn't victimize people. You tell that to the people who survived his traps. Jigsaw made the traps, you know. Gordon's wife and kid were innocent too, you know. 

Considering that Hoffman got the girl ( Jeff's daughter ) in Saw 5, you can always imagine that Jigsaw was just bluffing OR Hoffman already knew the game's result ( including Jigsaw's death ) and acted to be the real "hero".

Saw is a *beep* franchise.

Only if you don't understand what you're watching, which is quite clear if we read your post. lol

[–] kzaatar 8 years ago

Nope. It was all Amanda. In Saw 3, it is revealed that it was Amanda's idea to kidnap Adam, and she was the one who orchestrated his trap.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paulg-67221 8 years ago

Yep, straight up murderer.

Some of his traps like the opening of Saw VI, have at least one person dying. So right there he's a murderer.

Not only did he leave Adam to die but he (along with Amanda) put him there in the first place knowing he was probably going to die. If Gordon failed, Zepp was told to kill Gordon's family. He poisoned Mark and covered him in flammable stuff and gave him a small candle for source of light. No matter what trap, his victims are most likely going to die and most do. He was the one who put them there, he knew they could possibly die, it was pre-meditated, he is a full on psychopath.

No matter how the films try to justify his actions, there is no way he isn't a murderer.