This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Whether or not the character is dead, alive or unknown should be stated for each and every single one of them. It should be stated just below the part which states the actor's name.
Here, I'll show you a sample of something it could look like:
Morgan
Status: Alive
Morgan appears in Saw IV as the wife of a suspected physical abuser. Despite evidence, the police are unable to act upon her husband because both she and her daughter refuse to testify against him. Morgan is later put into a test with her husband involving numerous rods pierced through them, forced to free herself by killing him. She does so by removing all but one rod, but is found unconscious by Rigg, who then supplies her with a key to free herself before pulling a fire alarm and leaving. When found by Strahm and Perez and their crew, Morgan stated that Rigg saved her.
Lindsey Perez
Status: Deceased
Perez is from the FBI along with Peter Strahm. She along with Strahm, follow Rigg in his city-wide pursuit. At one of the crime scenes, Perez finds a tape recorder with a tape inside laying next to a Billy doll, as some sort of test for her. It tells her that her next step is crucial before the puppet's face explodes, sending shards into her face and neck. She is rushed to the hospital, but it is unknown if she survived. Had she figured that the two folders she and Strahm found previously (minus the two Jigsaw victims Strahm figured should be there) were referring to them she would have heeded the warning "you're in danger, take a step back" and avoided hospitalisation when confronted with the exploding Billy puppet.perez got stabbed and burned to death by detective hoffman from setting the office onfire on saw VI.
Rex
Status: Deceased
Rex was the abusive husband of Morgan, who was also suspected of hitting his daughter. However, since neither Morgan nor her daughter testified against him, he was never sentenced. Rigg ended up punching Rex after talking to his daughter about her bruises, but escaped a lawsuit due to Art Blanc. Rex was later put into a test with his wife, in which he was doomed to die if Morgan tried to free herself. Rex bled to death as Morgan proceeded to try to escape.
It's what fans would be interested to quickly see as they scroll down, obviously.
Yeldarb68
08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So apparently there is an unintelligent elitist on here that thinks he runs this place, when really this place is wikipedia and isn't run by any specific individual, contrary to this warped individual's way of thinking.
You know who you are. Why delete what was placed, and then move this category all the way to the bottom, AND THEN provide absolutely no reponse to the topic? Do you have no response? Or do you have difficulties expressing yourself in the written form? It's okay if you are not very articulate. Give it a go. If you are so confident to act as if in charge of... a wikipedia thing .. surely you can gather the courage to explain yourself in trying to be the dictator of SAW on wikipedia, eh? Yeldarb68 11:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in catagories, like Recurring characters, Saw 1 characters, Saw 2 Characters, Saw III Characters... 211.30.215.168 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please merge any relevant content from:
per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Denlon. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-17 21:13Z
Should we include the dead cellmate from Amanda's trap? Apparently, he was portrayed by Oren Koules, but was never named... According to IMDb, there was also another detective, but who? Was Brett the detective from Amanda's interrogation? If so, shouldn't he be listed under "Detective" Brett like the other Detectives? Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No because Brett was Gordon's lawyer in the movie. The character even stated this himself. If there was another detective it's mostlikely the guy who sits Amanda down next to Tapp.
That black guy had a visitor's badge on. He put his arm wound Amanda like he knew her personally. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yeldarb68 (
talk •
contribs)
14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I made pictures of almost all Saw-Characters, i don't know how to upload them on here, but someone else can do it if he/she has the ability ( http://www.bilder-speicher.de/member_album.php?intID=5534)
Coudn't the list be categorized like:
It's only a thought. -- Rutherfordjigsaw 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that Troy had a jigsaw piece cut out of him, which could either be a continuity error in the movie, or maybe the door wasn't welded shut until the end of the game. Maybe we will never know.
Watch it again. John says he cuts out a piece, the piece they are missing - survival. 67.142.130.14 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:OBISAW2.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 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 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Detectivesing.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 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 10:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:TroySawIIILarose.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 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 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I see on here that there is a reference that his character Forensic Hoffman is "the one that will continue jigsaw's work" where is the citation for this statement? Was it in a trailer? publication? Jjkayes 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, watch the movie and you'll see.
67.142.130.14
23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The movie never says that Hoffman will be the one to carry on John's work. Quite the opposite actually. SAW IV revealed that although Hoffman was in on it - he himself is still going to have to be tested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeldarb68 ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As so did Amanda (being tested, 3 times actually [if you count Saw2]). I believe Hoffman was in on it for a while. John knew too much about people, and he needed someone's help to find these people and information (a cop). I believe it will be him that carries it on. Who else are their? We'll just see in 5. It's too early to be calling names. 72.171.0.146 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Most Characters that WERE presumed to appear in Saw 4, DID NOT or DID appear in the Film....most "Did Not" like Obi for example. Someone who has seen the movie several times or has a OFFICIAL FINAL CASTING of the Film please update the Character's page correctly correcting the assumptions that each character that were going to be in Saw 4 are deleted or etc. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:GusSawII.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 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 01:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Jilljigsaw.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 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:XavierSawII.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 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 ( talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing to suggest he survived. Saying "Its unknown if he survived or not." is just speculation. Its not comparable to Gordon, whose fate was deliberately left up in the air.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Though his death is implied, it is never seen. Saw 4 was originally scripted to say that his sacrifices will never be forgotten, but it was taken out. Why? For the possibility that his character may return. The Saw series is known for huge plot twists, and showing that he somehow survived is not too far out of stretch.
Besides, do you think Jigsaw would see Tapp on the floor and do nothing? He doesn'tdo that. Chances are better than not he would use Tapp in a trap in the future. It is not above him as he uses ANYBODY, even people who have won the game, like Eric Matthews.
Eric had two games. The first he failed in staying to talk with Jigsaw. Eric won his last game in escaping the chain from the bathroom as Jigsaw himself stated in Saw 3. He was finished, yet he was used again as part of a trap in Saw 4.
If there is no confirmation that he is dead, then his current status is "unknown", regardless of what condition he was last seen in. Like I stated before, Jigsaw would most likely attempt to do something to save him to put him in a future trap.
I apologize for the removal or yourlast post. It is was completely unitentional and an error on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.162.178 ( talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
While they may say he was confirmed dead, it is not beyond them to bring him back. In the canon story, his fate has never been determined. And the writers have thrown off fans of the series before, such as the lie that Donnie Walberg would not return for Saw 3. He did, and it's very possible Danny Glover could as well. A death needs to be confirmed in the canon story or it cannot be considered confirmed.
Why else do you think they would take out the tribute to Tapp and Sing in Saw 4? The only logical explanation is that they would at least want to consider bringing him back in the future. If his death was confirmed, there would be no reason to take out that scene in the script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.247.247 ( talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What is speculation is to state that his death is confirmed. He is never shown dead. Notice I stress it is "implied" he died. Is it unreasonable to write that his death is techincally never shown, though it is implied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.247.247 ( talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is actually hilarious to read now. As we're all probably aware by this stage, Tapp was confirmed dead in both Saw V and the video game 'Saw II: Flesh and Blood'. 2birds1stone ( talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Image:AddisonSaw2.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 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) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:GlennPlummer.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 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) 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does she have her own entry? Her only purpose in the film is to show another Jigsaw trap -- she doesn't have any lines and her death had no practical purpose to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
All of Jigsaw's victim's should be noteworthy. Mark and Paul hardly said anything either, and their only purpose was to show Jigsaw traps too. But they are still worth keeping. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mark and Paul were used in the traps though. The female photographer died by accident and is as important as the random officers in Saw 2 that were involved in the staircase trap (and if I'm not mistaken, they were removed from the character list). -- Tam001 ( talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The guys on the staircase could have lived. That was left ambiguous. The Crime Scene Photographer definitely died. And whether or not that device was left there to kill a cop intentionally or whether it was accidental is questionable. If someone (an apprentice) intentionally wanted it to kill someone, that could hint at that said apprentice being flawed. And noone knew the names of the actors who played the several cops on the stairs in II, which wasn't very professional for the list, whereas we know the name of the actress who played this character in IV. And furthermore, she did more than die. She was the one who found the bullet casing wedged between Kerry's body and the Angel trap. That is a major plot point. I think your biggest issue with this character is that she hasn't got a name. IF she had a name would you be questioning her placement here at all? The unnamed man from part 1 has a place here, despite not having any name or lines. And I would argue that the unnamed woman is more significant to the plot than Brett ever was. Brett wasn't put in ANY trap situation at all. So delete her, and I will understand that the requirements to be on this list are strict, and that characters even less significant than her, such as Brett should also be removed for the sake of implementing the requirements of the rules evenly across all of the SAW movies.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Julie Benz's character name is not "Brit". What sources have said is that her character will be "a Brit". That is, her character will be British. IMDb misinterpreted these sources. It was not stated that her character was named "Brit", but simply that her character is British.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The only source so far about this character being in Saw V is IMDb. I do not think that is a reliable source. I suggest that she should be taken off the list of characters until a more reliable source confirms that she is in it. But I'll leave this up to discussion. What does anybody else think on this?
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. IMDB is not reliable. SkepticBanner ( talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that recently the characters have been categorized into 'main', 'protagonist' and 'supporting' and 'minor'. PERSONALLY, I liked it better when it was categorized by which film each character made their first appearance, as I felt it was more encyclopedic, whereas the current framework is more subjective (eg, deciding which characters were 'minor' as opposed to 'supporting', etc). So I though I start a discussion about it.
Is the old way preferrable to the new framework? Either way, discuss.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 08:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
A large majority of characters overlap into each film and as such, reading about a character in Saw II section can reveal info about Saw V, plus each was just an extensive list of characters including incredibly minor and unimportant ones. Theres nothing subjective about who the main characters are and who the protagonists of each film are, they're easily identifiable. Supporting characters get decent screen time but definitely are not the main focus and minor characters are people who don't really do anything but exist and act as either a victim, a brief background character or an incentive for a victim and whose lines are generally "ahhhhhhhhhhhh, omg, why are you doing this to m...". I used to do it the other way for another article that features a large list of characters with one TWO that overlapped into different sections for reappearance and it was largely voted down in favour of a model like this. The headers are open for re-naming, they're just the best I could think of at the time and the most representative of the role. Jig, Amanda and Hoffman I considered main because they are each playing the role of the Jigsaw killer, the driving focus of the films while hte protagonists are generally only the protagonist for one film and are the focus of the main trap/game with the goal being to defeat it at the culmination of the film. Personally I like it much better, the important sections are shorter, neater and more organised and the unimportant ones are down at the bottom where they belong.
EDIT: Ideally I'd like to make a section for really minor characters like unnamed man, unnamed woman, people who literally appear on screen just to die, but I couldn't think of a name for such a section.
EDIT2: You could easily, if you wanted to, add a line beneath "This character was portrayed by" that states:
I still like the old way better. It was easier to navigate through. And it was less subjective to do it by first appearance than by OR categories of 'protagonist', 'supporting', 'minor'. But I'm not in charge here. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
What i dont understand is why are people putting in interviews and what the actor says or what the producers say. I thought that it was about the actual character of the movie and how they pertain to the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.218.159 ( talk) 12:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
So, do you think Hoffman deserves his own article yet? Saw V was pretty much entirely devoted to him, so he certainly has enough background info now. 69.207.115.250 ( talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
They make no sense now, it's talking about how Adam kicked the bathtub stopper then immediately starts talking about what Daniel did. It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overtwitch2 ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that Erickson should be moved from "minor characters" to "supporting characters." While he wasn't a featured main character, he was deffinitly a major supporting character in "Saw V," and was very important to the plot. If smaller characters like Steven Sing are in the list of "supporting characters", than I think Erickson should deffinitly be there. Anyone agree? MaximumMadnessStixon ( talk) 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of this article states:
"The following is a list of characters who have appeared throughout the Saw series, either as main characters, victims of games, detectives, or others. This list places the characters in alphabetical order based on surname, or first name if the former is not confirmed in any Saw media, and then into categories based upon the role they play in the series."
- This implies that if a characters family name is known, that they will be listed alphabetically by that family name. And only by first name if the family name is unknown. So why is the article not following its opening paragraph? And I think it SHOULD. The characters should be listed alphabetically by family name.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Who comes here looking for Gordon, Lawrence? Just change the opening paragraph. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
________
Is that section necessary at all? Do "David" and "Billy" really needed to be mentioned on this list? I think not. What does everyone else think? Yeldarb68 ( talk) 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
At one point in Saw V, Agent Strahm holds a list of all Jigsaw's victims, which is where all the surnames have come from. I think the film itself qualifies as a source, so I've removed all the 'citation needed'.
Please make a citaion of that then in all the characters names. 142.177.172.97 ( talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think "Faulkner" should be listed along with "Stanheight" with Adam's character, since that was his official last name (from the Saw Website and scripts) until its appearance on the list in Saw V. It's another mistake, like how the shackle was on Adam's left ankle at one point, but then on his right at another. Mistakes happen. If people don't want to list "Faulkner" beside Adam's name, they should at least explain that it was that at one stage. Also, I'd be very grateful if people stopped trying to change the stopper paragraph below that; even though Amanda wrapping the stopper around Adam's ankle made it more likely that the key went down the drain, it probably still would have ended up down there, when Adam used the stopper to reach the tape recorder in the middle of the room. It's a known fact, so please. Stop. Deleting. It. Thank you. — unsigned 3:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Saw IV and Saw V page indicate "Stallberg" and not "Leahy" What's the real name ? Nico92400 ( talk) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now, I'm not 100% sure, but they way I always learned it was that the "antagonist" wasn't always the 'bad guy', nor was the "protagonist" always the 'good guy'. I've always learned it as "protagonist" is the main character, and "antagonist" is their opposing force(s). And if that's the case, I believe we should take Amanda, John, and Hoffman out of the "antagonists" section as they're more the main characters or "protagonists". Just a suggestions -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The classic example of villainous protagonists is Shakespeare's Macbeth. But so far I cannot accept Jigsaw, Amanda or Hoffman have ever been protagonists (that is the story being told completely from their point of view). What made Macbeth and Lady Macbeth 'protagonists' was that the story was being told from their perspective. With Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman, we very rarely follow things from their point of view, with the exception of brief flashbacks. While they appear the most frequently over the entire movies as a whole, that does not necessarily mean they are the protagonists. Each individual film for the most part portrays the flow of events from the point of view of someone else other than them. Jigsaw's, Amanda's and Hoffman's views for the most part are left ambiguous and mysterious until some kind of revelation through a twist ending, but throughout most of each film the audience is left ignorant of what they have planned, thus proving that the films' plot is not told from the villains' perspective. The protagonists are usually shocked by this twist (as are the audience - thus showing the audience is intended to be following the story from that said point of view of the main victim of each film). The audience 'discovers' things at the same time as these main victims. Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman are antagonists in the sense that they create obstacles for these characters. And we as the audience 'see' these villains from the perspective of them. We learn more about Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman as the protagonists of each film learn more about one or more them. For example, we learn more about Hoffman in V, only because we are watching the protagonist Strahm learn more about him. Etc, etc. Things of course get more complicated in the circumstance of III, where Jigsaw and Amanda clashed with each other, but that is actually normal in plots involving multiple antagonists that they often clash both with the protagonists as well as each other. But the point is, that Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman are antagonists not because they are "bad", but because the plot of each film isn't from their view. Dr. Gordon, Eric Matthews, Lynn, Rigg and Strahm are the protagonists because we, the audience, followed them along as they uncovered and discovered plot elements. Thus, the current status of protagonist/antagonist here. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do people keep calling Obi "Obadiah "Obi" Gee". When in Straham goes into the file room if you look at the names on the outsied of the victems files. One of them clear as days says Obi Tate. not trying to be a jerk but i havnt seen any proof that his name is Obadiah "Obi" Gee. If u can prove me wrong his nam isnt obi tate i would love to see it. because if the movies clearly states thats his name looks like im right. watch the movies people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonesoldjah ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In Saw II, Saw III and Saw V state his name is just Obi with no last name. Says in credits on all 3 dvds and imdb.com that its just Obi. None of them state Obadiah "Obi" Gee. No i do not have a screen shot. If you are saw fanatic like me you would already own Saw V. all you gotta do is pop it in and go to the scene where strahm goes into the file room and look. Pause it or put it in slow motion and you will see Obi Tate presumed victem of Jigsaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.209.38 ( talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed something. In the characters of the Saw Movies that have their own individual Wikipedia article, such as Eric Matthews, if they have any kind of "relationship" to Obi, his last name is listed as Gee, and from the edit history I have looked through in those articles, that last name was not recently put there. It's been there for quite some time now. 142.177.170.70 ( talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Once agian Obadiah "Obi" Gee was made up by someone there is no proof in any of the saw movies thats his first name or last name. But in saw v they do show his name as OBI Tate. but you idiots keep saying gee with no proof at all all youy rteards keeps saying well its been gee see keep it that way. funny how the movie states his name as obi tate and none of you keep his name as tate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonesoldjah ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he has a name. This article mentions Strahm looking at a list of victims of Saw traps. I noticed that on that list, the name right after Amanda Young is "Donnie Greco". Do you think that might be the man from the Reverse Beartrap, with the key hidden in his stomach? 24.65.118.20 ( talk) 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any need for Strahm to have his own article? It seems to be entirely plot reiteration that oculd quite easily exist here. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What actually happens to Jeff's daughter? Does she die because he didn't complete the game? AdamLakeATCL ( talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)AdamLakeATCL AdamLakeATCL ( talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saw_characters#Corbett_Reinhart Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
From top to bottom, I scrolled quite a bit. Just my opinion, I think this list is way too long in length compared to some of the lists I seen on here. I am merely suggesting these lists to be separated, and not consolidated into one big list. Its too complex to read in one go, unless there are redirects to the list to which it automatically scrolls to the appropriate information requested. Thanks for reading, even if you don't agree with me. JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 08:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to scroll all the way down. Use the contents tab, you'll be fine. 124.176.63.153 ( talk) 08:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We should add more characters from Saw 6 on here. I think the ones in the carousel room are Dave, Josh, Gena, Shelby, Aaron, and Emily. 24.65.126.227 ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Gerry Mendicino as Janitor (the man that got crushed because he couldn't hold his breath. He was in William's first test.) Done but may require copy-editing and more details.
--
MikeAllen (
talk)
16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to say that Peter Strahm "appeared" in Saw VI? If so, then it would also be necessary to say that Dr. Gordon appeared in Saw III (as a flashback, when Amanda and John are setting up the bathroom trap) as he is seen unconscious face down on the floor. Although, of course Cary did not play him. Also, I don't remember Jeff "appearing" in Saw VI, not even in a flashback? - MikeAllen ( talk) 03:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
People shouldn't be listed for appearing for 3 seconds in a film UNLESS they actually are influential in something in the current film, so flashbacks shouldn't count unless they appear in the flesh and alive. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It is becoming a bit too cluttered as there are increasingly too many characters under subheadings 'minor characters' and increasingly even 'supporting characters'. And it will get even worse with a supposed SAW VII and SAW VIII being confirmed. It would be neater and more concise to have the characters divided under the subheading of which film they first appeared in. Such a change would: be easier and neater to reference and navigate, it would be a format that would allow continuous ease with the event of more sequels, and it would be objective (because the current labels of 'supporting', 'minor', etc are arguably original research and therefore inappropriate). 124.176.63.153 ( talk) 11:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Would this page benefit to be laid out like this? I personally think it would help the page. Opinions? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, it would also make it easier to list groups of characters, such as the abusive couple or the six insurance investigators from VI all in one entry and condensing the article some. Enigmatic2k3 ( talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
So I'm going to suggest the following characters are deleted as either irrelevant, pointless or just not worth mentioning unless further information comes forward. Not all victims should be listed simply because they are present in the movie, its just taking up space. I mean #Crime scene photgrapher'? In some cases a brief mention in omeone elses bio would suffice, such as Jeff Reinharts son. In other cases their information is just plot that is stated elsewhere. I think any characters who appear in the games should be in a separate section unless they appear in one of the films.
In some cases there are people who appear not prominently but frequently in a film like those in Saw V but again their bio can be covered in their related movie article and probably already is.
I'm obviously up for discussion on these but I believe that most of them would not be a huge loss to this article or remove any information that couldn't be found anywhere else. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorting a list like this by each individual film will only contribute to the bloat, especially for the major characters who have more and more backstory revealed with each film. A character page, even a list one, should be a synopsis of the CHARACTER, the individual details for each film are better left on the films' pages. For characters like Alison Gordon, the entry could made as 'Lawrence, Alison & Diana Gordon', which would still describe the doctor's basic points and include that his wife and child were hostages. Enigmatic2k3 ( talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we get some kind of consensus on what should be appearing here? I'm sure I'll be told its unencyclopedic but listing them as appearing in films just because stock footage was used for a flashback doesn't seem quite valid. Some of these listings seem to be for them appearing in a montage of victims for less than a second. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
See here.
This is to display layout suggestion only. Actual content would require more work...
As can be seen, some character descriptions are far too long and need to be trimmed down. No character should have a full biography but only a brief description of several lines in my opinion. And as can be seen, under this format, there is plenty of room to add more characters under the sequels (and also to unmerge characters that have been shoved into one entry) without the worry of bloat. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on I've trimmed a lot of them down by like 2 paragraphs in some cases, boiling them down to bare essentials, I think I'm doing a decent job at it. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd hope my descriptions would stay or I've wasted a big chunk of my time. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding your new descriptions and am going to revert the page to the new layout. --04:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The only complaint I have, and its only a minor possibility, is what if theres an entry in thje series that features no new characters that haven't appeared elsewhere? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh its not important until it happens. Other thing, I noticed someone has added someone called Cowan, an FBI agent who placed a trace on Strahms phone. Now I know that the unnamed IP says its a list and should be as comprehensive as possible but that kind of entry is surely on the same level as Crime Scene Photographer in that they are props and nothing more. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
How can he be alive when we see him with a missing foot at the end of the first film? -- 92.2.178.82 ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the movie is conclusive as to his death. Any other sources that verify he is actually dead? MrTwig ( talk) 09:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed in 'Saw V' and 'Saw II: Flesh and Blood', the sequel to 'Saw: The Video Game' EDIT: That is, his death is confirmed 2birds1stone ( talk) 11:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Just curious but is the part about her NOT being in Saw 3D because they didnt think it was worth it really worth noting? Im sure theres plenty of characters they tried to bring back but couldnt get a good story for or get the actor/actress Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Billy be in here? After all, he's become an (if not the) icon of the Saw series. ||| Billy the Pup pet 07:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It shows up in peoples watchlists and ruins the whole goddamn movie. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
In Saw IV,
Jill Tuck: He [John Kramer] was diagnosed with cancer soon after that.
Peter Strahm: Did you try to contact him again?
Jill Tuck: I tried, but a different person crawled out of the wreckage. Someone else+ survived.
Then, Jill picks up the pictures of Cecil Adams in John's workshop.
John: I asked you not to come here.
...
Jill: (Showing John Cecil's pictures) What have you done to him?
John: I told him not to take life for granted.
+ It is very reasonable to infer that the "someone else" who survived was Cecil Adams.
This is consistent with John's belief that everybody deserves a chance and Cecil's will to live.
Cecil's death is shown on screen, is that good enough refutation for you? What Jill is saying is that John changed in the crash, and is not the man he used to be. 2birds1stone ( talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the garage trap characters and Alex & Sidney be merged into two paragraphs each, just like Brad, Dina, and Ryan ? IchiGhost ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There's been some disagreements on certain characters (mostly Bobby and Hoffman) on whether they are dead, alive or unknown. Because we all know Wikipedia must inform readers if a fictional character is dead or alive. Anyway, according to the OfficialSaw.com. Click on the left pane "House of Jigsaw" → The Victims → at top click "Saw The Final Chapter". There it says Bobby is Alive. However, if you go the Saw section it has Dr. Gordon as "Unknown; likely Dead". Though, of course that could just be outdated---but everyone else is pretty accurate. What do others think about all of this? — Mike Allen 06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an editing war going on considering information that was revealed on the DVD commentary. Is such info considered canon or do we only accept stuff that was actually in the movies? IchiGhost ( talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The enumeration of the films in the opening paragraph is prefaced with "The series comprises seven films..." and then precedes to list eight. This has been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.142.210 ( talk) 05:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
8 films shouldn't be listed at all, because 8 films DO NOT EXIST. Until Saw VIII is MADE, the series comprises 7 films. 24.163.122.150 ( talk) 01:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead-in reads that the Saw franchise contains 8 films, which is flat out false. Saw VIII has not been made. It seems only a handful of statements about its development are all that exist; even if more details have surfaced the article should not read that the "series comprises 8 films." WP:CRYSTALBALL 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
just an idea
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Saw characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=L0XMTV1GWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Whether or not the character is dead, alive or unknown should be stated for each and every single one of them. It should be stated just below the part which states the actor's name.
Here, I'll show you a sample of something it could look like:
Morgan
Status: Alive
Morgan appears in Saw IV as the wife of a suspected physical abuser. Despite evidence, the police are unable to act upon her husband because both she and her daughter refuse to testify against him. Morgan is later put into a test with her husband involving numerous rods pierced through them, forced to free herself by killing him. She does so by removing all but one rod, but is found unconscious by Rigg, who then supplies her with a key to free herself before pulling a fire alarm and leaving. When found by Strahm and Perez and their crew, Morgan stated that Rigg saved her.
Lindsey Perez
Status: Deceased
Perez is from the FBI along with Peter Strahm. She along with Strahm, follow Rigg in his city-wide pursuit. At one of the crime scenes, Perez finds a tape recorder with a tape inside laying next to a Billy doll, as some sort of test for her. It tells her that her next step is crucial before the puppet's face explodes, sending shards into her face and neck. She is rushed to the hospital, but it is unknown if she survived. Had she figured that the two folders she and Strahm found previously (minus the two Jigsaw victims Strahm figured should be there) were referring to them she would have heeded the warning "you're in danger, take a step back" and avoided hospitalisation when confronted with the exploding Billy puppet.perez got stabbed and burned to death by detective hoffman from setting the office onfire on saw VI.
Rex
Status: Deceased
Rex was the abusive husband of Morgan, who was also suspected of hitting his daughter. However, since neither Morgan nor her daughter testified against him, he was never sentenced. Rigg ended up punching Rex after talking to his daughter about her bruises, but escaped a lawsuit due to Art Blanc. Rex was later put into a test with his wife, in which he was doomed to die if Morgan tried to free herself. Rex bled to death as Morgan proceeded to try to escape.
It's what fans would be interested to quickly see as they scroll down, obviously.
Yeldarb68
08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So apparently there is an unintelligent elitist on here that thinks he runs this place, when really this place is wikipedia and isn't run by any specific individual, contrary to this warped individual's way of thinking.
You know who you are. Why delete what was placed, and then move this category all the way to the bottom, AND THEN provide absolutely no reponse to the topic? Do you have no response? Or do you have difficulties expressing yourself in the written form? It's okay if you are not very articulate. Give it a go. If you are so confident to act as if in charge of... a wikipedia thing .. surely you can gather the courage to explain yourself in trying to be the dictator of SAW on wikipedia, eh? Yeldarb68 11:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in catagories, like Recurring characters, Saw 1 characters, Saw 2 Characters, Saw III Characters... 211.30.215.168 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please merge any relevant content from:
per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Denlon. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-17 21:13Z
Should we include the dead cellmate from Amanda's trap? Apparently, he was portrayed by Oren Koules, but was never named... According to IMDb, there was also another detective, but who? Was Brett the detective from Amanda's interrogation? If so, shouldn't he be listed under "Detective" Brett like the other Detectives? Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No because Brett was Gordon's lawyer in the movie. The character even stated this himself. If there was another detective it's mostlikely the guy who sits Amanda down next to Tapp.
That black guy had a visitor's badge on. He put his arm wound Amanda like he knew her personally. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yeldarb68 (
talk •
contribs)
14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I made pictures of almost all Saw-Characters, i don't know how to upload them on here, but someone else can do it if he/she has the ability ( http://www.bilder-speicher.de/member_album.php?intID=5534)
Coudn't the list be categorized like:
It's only a thought. -- Rutherfordjigsaw 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that Troy had a jigsaw piece cut out of him, which could either be a continuity error in the movie, or maybe the door wasn't welded shut until the end of the game. Maybe we will never know.
Watch it again. John says he cuts out a piece, the piece they are missing - survival. 67.142.130.14 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:OBISAW2.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 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 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Detectivesing.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 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 10:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:TroySawIIILarose.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 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 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I see on here that there is a reference that his character Forensic Hoffman is "the one that will continue jigsaw's work" where is the citation for this statement? Was it in a trailer? publication? Jjkayes 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, watch the movie and you'll see.
67.142.130.14
23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The movie never says that Hoffman will be the one to carry on John's work. Quite the opposite actually. SAW IV revealed that although Hoffman was in on it - he himself is still going to have to be tested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeldarb68 ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As so did Amanda (being tested, 3 times actually [if you count Saw2]). I believe Hoffman was in on it for a while. John knew too much about people, and he needed someone's help to find these people and information (a cop). I believe it will be him that carries it on. Who else are their? We'll just see in 5. It's too early to be calling names. 72.171.0.146 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Most Characters that WERE presumed to appear in Saw 4, DID NOT or DID appear in the Film....most "Did Not" like Obi for example. Someone who has seen the movie several times or has a OFFICIAL FINAL CASTING of the Film please update the Character's page correctly correcting the assumptions that each character that were going to be in Saw 4 are deleted or etc. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:GusSawII.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 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 01:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Jilljigsaw.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 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:XavierSawII.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 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 ( talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing to suggest he survived. Saying "Its unknown if he survived or not." is just speculation. Its not comparable to Gordon, whose fate was deliberately left up in the air.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Though his death is implied, it is never seen. Saw 4 was originally scripted to say that his sacrifices will never be forgotten, but it was taken out. Why? For the possibility that his character may return. The Saw series is known for huge plot twists, and showing that he somehow survived is not too far out of stretch.
Besides, do you think Jigsaw would see Tapp on the floor and do nothing? He doesn'tdo that. Chances are better than not he would use Tapp in a trap in the future. It is not above him as he uses ANYBODY, even people who have won the game, like Eric Matthews.
Eric had two games. The first he failed in staying to talk with Jigsaw. Eric won his last game in escaping the chain from the bathroom as Jigsaw himself stated in Saw 3. He was finished, yet he was used again as part of a trap in Saw 4.
If there is no confirmation that he is dead, then his current status is "unknown", regardless of what condition he was last seen in. Like I stated before, Jigsaw would most likely attempt to do something to save him to put him in a future trap.
I apologize for the removal or yourlast post. It is was completely unitentional and an error on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.162.178 ( talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
While they may say he was confirmed dead, it is not beyond them to bring him back. In the canon story, his fate has never been determined. And the writers have thrown off fans of the series before, such as the lie that Donnie Walberg would not return for Saw 3. He did, and it's very possible Danny Glover could as well. A death needs to be confirmed in the canon story or it cannot be considered confirmed.
Why else do you think they would take out the tribute to Tapp and Sing in Saw 4? The only logical explanation is that they would at least want to consider bringing him back in the future. If his death was confirmed, there would be no reason to take out that scene in the script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.247.247 ( talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What is speculation is to state that his death is confirmed. He is never shown dead. Notice I stress it is "implied" he died. Is it unreasonable to write that his death is techincally never shown, though it is implied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.247.247 ( talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is actually hilarious to read now. As we're all probably aware by this stage, Tapp was confirmed dead in both Saw V and the video game 'Saw II: Flesh and Blood'. 2birds1stone ( talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Image:AddisonSaw2.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 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) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:GlennPlummer.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 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) 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does she have her own entry? Her only purpose in the film is to show another Jigsaw trap -- she doesn't have any lines and her death had no practical purpose to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
All of Jigsaw's victim's should be noteworthy. Mark and Paul hardly said anything either, and their only purpose was to show Jigsaw traps too. But they are still worth keeping. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mark and Paul were used in the traps though. The female photographer died by accident and is as important as the random officers in Saw 2 that were involved in the staircase trap (and if I'm not mistaken, they were removed from the character list). -- Tam001 ( talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The guys on the staircase could have lived. That was left ambiguous. The Crime Scene Photographer definitely died. And whether or not that device was left there to kill a cop intentionally or whether it was accidental is questionable. If someone (an apprentice) intentionally wanted it to kill someone, that could hint at that said apprentice being flawed. And noone knew the names of the actors who played the several cops on the stairs in II, which wasn't very professional for the list, whereas we know the name of the actress who played this character in IV. And furthermore, she did more than die. She was the one who found the bullet casing wedged between Kerry's body and the Angel trap. That is a major plot point. I think your biggest issue with this character is that she hasn't got a name. IF she had a name would you be questioning her placement here at all? The unnamed man from part 1 has a place here, despite not having any name or lines. And I would argue that the unnamed woman is more significant to the plot than Brett ever was. Brett wasn't put in ANY trap situation at all. So delete her, and I will understand that the requirements to be on this list are strict, and that characters even less significant than her, such as Brett should also be removed for the sake of implementing the requirements of the rules evenly across all of the SAW movies.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Julie Benz's character name is not "Brit". What sources have said is that her character will be "a Brit". That is, her character will be British. IMDb misinterpreted these sources. It was not stated that her character was named "Brit", but simply that her character is British.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The only source so far about this character being in Saw V is IMDb. I do not think that is a reliable source. I suggest that she should be taken off the list of characters until a more reliable source confirms that she is in it. But I'll leave this up to discussion. What does anybody else think on this?
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. IMDB is not reliable. SkepticBanner ( talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that recently the characters have been categorized into 'main', 'protagonist' and 'supporting' and 'minor'. PERSONALLY, I liked it better when it was categorized by which film each character made their first appearance, as I felt it was more encyclopedic, whereas the current framework is more subjective (eg, deciding which characters were 'minor' as opposed to 'supporting', etc). So I though I start a discussion about it.
Is the old way preferrable to the new framework? Either way, discuss.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 08:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
A large majority of characters overlap into each film and as such, reading about a character in Saw II section can reveal info about Saw V, plus each was just an extensive list of characters including incredibly minor and unimportant ones. Theres nothing subjective about who the main characters are and who the protagonists of each film are, they're easily identifiable. Supporting characters get decent screen time but definitely are not the main focus and minor characters are people who don't really do anything but exist and act as either a victim, a brief background character or an incentive for a victim and whose lines are generally "ahhhhhhhhhhhh, omg, why are you doing this to m...". I used to do it the other way for another article that features a large list of characters with one TWO that overlapped into different sections for reappearance and it was largely voted down in favour of a model like this. The headers are open for re-naming, they're just the best I could think of at the time and the most representative of the role. Jig, Amanda and Hoffman I considered main because they are each playing the role of the Jigsaw killer, the driving focus of the films while hte protagonists are generally only the protagonist for one film and are the focus of the main trap/game with the goal being to defeat it at the culmination of the film. Personally I like it much better, the important sections are shorter, neater and more organised and the unimportant ones are down at the bottom where they belong.
EDIT: Ideally I'd like to make a section for really minor characters like unnamed man, unnamed woman, people who literally appear on screen just to die, but I couldn't think of a name for such a section.
EDIT2: You could easily, if you wanted to, add a line beneath "This character was portrayed by" that states:
I still like the old way better. It was easier to navigate through. And it was less subjective to do it by first appearance than by OR categories of 'protagonist', 'supporting', 'minor'. But I'm not in charge here. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
What i dont understand is why are people putting in interviews and what the actor says or what the producers say. I thought that it was about the actual character of the movie and how they pertain to the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.218.159 ( talk) 12:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
So, do you think Hoffman deserves his own article yet? Saw V was pretty much entirely devoted to him, so he certainly has enough background info now. 69.207.115.250 ( talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
They make no sense now, it's talking about how Adam kicked the bathtub stopper then immediately starts talking about what Daniel did. It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overtwitch2 ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that Erickson should be moved from "minor characters" to "supporting characters." While he wasn't a featured main character, he was deffinitly a major supporting character in "Saw V," and was very important to the plot. If smaller characters like Steven Sing are in the list of "supporting characters", than I think Erickson should deffinitly be there. Anyone agree? MaximumMadnessStixon ( talk) 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of this article states:
"The following is a list of characters who have appeared throughout the Saw series, either as main characters, victims of games, detectives, or others. This list places the characters in alphabetical order based on surname, or first name if the former is not confirmed in any Saw media, and then into categories based upon the role they play in the series."
- This implies that if a characters family name is known, that they will be listed alphabetically by that family name. And only by first name if the family name is unknown. So why is the article not following its opening paragraph? And I think it SHOULD. The characters should be listed alphabetically by family name.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Who comes here looking for Gordon, Lawrence? Just change the opening paragraph. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
________
Is that section necessary at all? Do "David" and "Billy" really needed to be mentioned on this list? I think not. What does everyone else think? Yeldarb68 ( talk) 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
At one point in Saw V, Agent Strahm holds a list of all Jigsaw's victims, which is where all the surnames have come from. I think the film itself qualifies as a source, so I've removed all the 'citation needed'.
Please make a citaion of that then in all the characters names. 142.177.172.97 ( talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think "Faulkner" should be listed along with "Stanheight" with Adam's character, since that was his official last name (from the Saw Website and scripts) until its appearance on the list in Saw V. It's another mistake, like how the shackle was on Adam's left ankle at one point, but then on his right at another. Mistakes happen. If people don't want to list "Faulkner" beside Adam's name, they should at least explain that it was that at one stage. Also, I'd be very grateful if people stopped trying to change the stopper paragraph below that; even though Amanda wrapping the stopper around Adam's ankle made it more likely that the key went down the drain, it probably still would have ended up down there, when Adam used the stopper to reach the tape recorder in the middle of the room. It's a known fact, so please. Stop. Deleting. It. Thank you. — unsigned 3:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Saw IV and Saw V page indicate "Stallberg" and not "Leahy" What's the real name ? Nico92400 ( talk) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now, I'm not 100% sure, but they way I always learned it was that the "antagonist" wasn't always the 'bad guy', nor was the "protagonist" always the 'good guy'. I've always learned it as "protagonist" is the main character, and "antagonist" is their opposing force(s). And if that's the case, I believe we should take Amanda, John, and Hoffman out of the "antagonists" section as they're more the main characters or "protagonists". Just a suggestions -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The classic example of villainous protagonists is Shakespeare's Macbeth. But so far I cannot accept Jigsaw, Amanda or Hoffman have ever been protagonists (that is the story being told completely from their point of view). What made Macbeth and Lady Macbeth 'protagonists' was that the story was being told from their perspective. With Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman, we very rarely follow things from their point of view, with the exception of brief flashbacks. While they appear the most frequently over the entire movies as a whole, that does not necessarily mean they are the protagonists. Each individual film for the most part portrays the flow of events from the point of view of someone else other than them. Jigsaw's, Amanda's and Hoffman's views for the most part are left ambiguous and mysterious until some kind of revelation through a twist ending, but throughout most of each film the audience is left ignorant of what they have planned, thus proving that the films' plot is not told from the villains' perspective. The protagonists are usually shocked by this twist (as are the audience - thus showing the audience is intended to be following the story from that said point of view of the main victim of each film). The audience 'discovers' things at the same time as these main victims. Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman are antagonists in the sense that they create obstacles for these characters. And we as the audience 'see' these villains from the perspective of them. We learn more about Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman as the protagonists of each film learn more about one or more them. For example, we learn more about Hoffman in V, only because we are watching the protagonist Strahm learn more about him. Etc, etc. Things of course get more complicated in the circumstance of III, where Jigsaw and Amanda clashed with each other, but that is actually normal in plots involving multiple antagonists that they often clash both with the protagonists as well as each other. But the point is, that Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman are antagonists not because they are "bad", but because the plot of each film isn't from their view. Dr. Gordon, Eric Matthews, Lynn, Rigg and Strahm are the protagonists because we, the audience, followed them along as they uncovered and discovered plot elements. Thus, the current status of protagonist/antagonist here. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do people keep calling Obi "Obadiah "Obi" Gee". When in Straham goes into the file room if you look at the names on the outsied of the victems files. One of them clear as days says Obi Tate. not trying to be a jerk but i havnt seen any proof that his name is Obadiah "Obi" Gee. If u can prove me wrong his nam isnt obi tate i would love to see it. because if the movies clearly states thats his name looks like im right. watch the movies people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonesoldjah ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In Saw II, Saw III and Saw V state his name is just Obi with no last name. Says in credits on all 3 dvds and imdb.com that its just Obi. None of them state Obadiah "Obi" Gee. No i do not have a screen shot. If you are saw fanatic like me you would already own Saw V. all you gotta do is pop it in and go to the scene where strahm goes into the file room and look. Pause it or put it in slow motion and you will see Obi Tate presumed victem of Jigsaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.209.38 ( talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed something. In the characters of the Saw Movies that have their own individual Wikipedia article, such as Eric Matthews, if they have any kind of "relationship" to Obi, his last name is listed as Gee, and from the edit history I have looked through in those articles, that last name was not recently put there. It's been there for quite some time now. 142.177.170.70 ( talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Once agian Obadiah "Obi" Gee was made up by someone there is no proof in any of the saw movies thats his first name or last name. But in saw v they do show his name as OBI Tate. but you idiots keep saying gee with no proof at all all youy rteards keeps saying well its been gee see keep it that way. funny how the movie states his name as obi tate and none of you keep his name as tate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonesoldjah ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he has a name. This article mentions Strahm looking at a list of victims of Saw traps. I noticed that on that list, the name right after Amanda Young is "Donnie Greco". Do you think that might be the man from the Reverse Beartrap, with the key hidden in his stomach? 24.65.118.20 ( talk) 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any need for Strahm to have his own article? It seems to be entirely plot reiteration that oculd quite easily exist here. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What actually happens to Jeff's daughter? Does she die because he didn't complete the game? AdamLakeATCL ( talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)AdamLakeATCL AdamLakeATCL ( talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saw_characters#Corbett_Reinhart Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
From top to bottom, I scrolled quite a bit. Just my opinion, I think this list is way too long in length compared to some of the lists I seen on here. I am merely suggesting these lists to be separated, and not consolidated into one big list. Its too complex to read in one go, unless there are redirects to the list to which it automatically scrolls to the appropriate information requested. Thanks for reading, even if you don't agree with me. JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 08:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to scroll all the way down. Use the contents tab, you'll be fine. 124.176.63.153 ( talk) 08:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We should add more characters from Saw 6 on here. I think the ones in the carousel room are Dave, Josh, Gena, Shelby, Aaron, and Emily. 24.65.126.227 ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Gerry Mendicino as Janitor (the man that got crushed because he couldn't hold his breath. He was in William's first test.) Done but may require copy-editing and more details.
--
MikeAllen (
talk)
16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to say that Peter Strahm "appeared" in Saw VI? If so, then it would also be necessary to say that Dr. Gordon appeared in Saw III (as a flashback, when Amanda and John are setting up the bathroom trap) as he is seen unconscious face down on the floor. Although, of course Cary did not play him. Also, I don't remember Jeff "appearing" in Saw VI, not even in a flashback? - MikeAllen ( talk) 03:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
People shouldn't be listed for appearing for 3 seconds in a film UNLESS they actually are influential in something in the current film, so flashbacks shouldn't count unless they appear in the flesh and alive. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It is becoming a bit too cluttered as there are increasingly too many characters under subheadings 'minor characters' and increasingly even 'supporting characters'. And it will get even worse with a supposed SAW VII and SAW VIII being confirmed. It would be neater and more concise to have the characters divided under the subheading of which film they first appeared in. Such a change would: be easier and neater to reference and navigate, it would be a format that would allow continuous ease with the event of more sequels, and it would be objective (because the current labels of 'supporting', 'minor', etc are arguably original research and therefore inappropriate). 124.176.63.153 ( talk) 11:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Would this page benefit to be laid out like this? I personally think it would help the page. Opinions? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, it would also make it easier to list groups of characters, such as the abusive couple or the six insurance investigators from VI all in one entry and condensing the article some. Enigmatic2k3 ( talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
So I'm going to suggest the following characters are deleted as either irrelevant, pointless or just not worth mentioning unless further information comes forward. Not all victims should be listed simply because they are present in the movie, its just taking up space. I mean #Crime scene photgrapher'? In some cases a brief mention in omeone elses bio would suffice, such as Jeff Reinharts son. In other cases their information is just plot that is stated elsewhere. I think any characters who appear in the games should be in a separate section unless they appear in one of the films.
In some cases there are people who appear not prominently but frequently in a film like those in Saw V but again their bio can be covered in their related movie article and probably already is.
I'm obviously up for discussion on these but I believe that most of them would not be a huge loss to this article or remove any information that couldn't be found anywhere else. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorting a list like this by each individual film will only contribute to the bloat, especially for the major characters who have more and more backstory revealed with each film. A character page, even a list one, should be a synopsis of the CHARACTER, the individual details for each film are better left on the films' pages. For characters like Alison Gordon, the entry could made as 'Lawrence, Alison & Diana Gordon', which would still describe the doctor's basic points and include that his wife and child were hostages. Enigmatic2k3 ( talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we get some kind of consensus on what should be appearing here? I'm sure I'll be told its unencyclopedic but listing them as appearing in films just because stock footage was used for a flashback doesn't seem quite valid. Some of these listings seem to be for them appearing in a montage of victims for less than a second. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
See here.
This is to display layout suggestion only. Actual content would require more work...
As can be seen, some character descriptions are far too long and need to be trimmed down. No character should have a full biography but only a brief description of several lines in my opinion. And as can be seen, under this format, there is plenty of room to add more characters under the sequels (and also to unmerge characters that have been shoved into one entry) without the worry of bloat. Yeldarb68 ( talk) 10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on I've trimmed a lot of them down by like 2 paragraphs in some cases, boiling them down to bare essentials, I think I'm doing a decent job at it. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd hope my descriptions would stay or I've wasted a big chunk of my time. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding your new descriptions and am going to revert the page to the new layout. --04:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The only complaint I have, and its only a minor possibility, is what if theres an entry in thje series that features no new characters that haven't appeared elsewhere? Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh its not important until it happens. Other thing, I noticed someone has added someone called Cowan, an FBI agent who placed a trace on Strahms phone. Now I know that the unnamed IP says its a list and should be as comprehensive as possible but that kind of entry is surely on the same level as Crime Scene Photographer in that they are props and nothing more. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
How can he be alive when we see him with a missing foot at the end of the first film? -- 92.2.178.82 ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the movie is conclusive as to his death. Any other sources that verify he is actually dead? MrTwig ( talk) 09:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed in 'Saw V' and 'Saw II: Flesh and Blood', the sequel to 'Saw: The Video Game' EDIT: That is, his death is confirmed 2birds1stone ( talk) 11:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Just curious but is the part about her NOT being in Saw 3D because they didnt think it was worth it really worth noting? Im sure theres plenty of characters they tried to bring back but couldnt get a good story for or get the actor/actress Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Billy be in here? After all, he's become an (if not the) icon of the Saw series. ||| Billy the Pup pet 07:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It shows up in peoples watchlists and ruins the whole goddamn movie. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
In Saw IV,
Jill Tuck: He [John Kramer] was diagnosed with cancer soon after that.
Peter Strahm: Did you try to contact him again?
Jill Tuck: I tried, but a different person crawled out of the wreckage. Someone else+ survived.
Then, Jill picks up the pictures of Cecil Adams in John's workshop.
John: I asked you not to come here.
...
Jill: (Showing John Cecil's pictures) What have you done to him?
John: I told him not to take life for granted.
+ It is very reasonable to infer that the "someone else" who survived was Cecil Adams.
This is consistent with John's belief that everybody deserves a chance and Cecil's will to live.
Cecil's death is shown on screen, is that good enough refutation for you? What Jill is saying is that John changed in the crash, and is not the man he used to be. 2birds1stone ( talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the garage trap characters and Alex & Sidney be merged into two paragraphs each, just like Brad, Dina, and Ryan ? IchiGhost ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There's been some disagreements on certain characters (mostly Bobby and Hoffman) on whether they are dead, alive or unknown. Because we all know Wikipedia must inform readers if a fictional character is dead or alive. Anyway, according to the OfficialSaw.com. Click on the left pane "House of Jigsaw" → The Victims → at top click "Saw The Final Chapter". There it says Bobby is Alive. However, if you go the Saw section it has Dr. Gordon as "Unknown; likely Dead". Though, of course that could just be outdated---but everyone else is pretty accurate. What do others think about all of this? — Mike Allen 06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an editing war going on considering information that was revealed on the DVD commentary. Is such info considered canon or do we only accept stuff that was actually in the movies? IchiGhost ( talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The enumeration of the films in the opening paragraph is prefaced with "The series comprises seven films..." and then precedes to list eight. This has been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.142.210 ( talk) 05:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
8 films shouldn't be listed at all, because 8 films DO NOT EXIST. Until Saw VIII is MADE, the series comprises 7 films. 24.163.122.150 ( talk) 01:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead-in reads that the Saw franchise contains 8 films, which is flat out false. Saw VIII has not been made. It seems only a handful of statements about its development are all that exist; even if more details have surfaced the article should not read that the "series comprises 8 films." WP:CRYSTALBALL 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
just an idea
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Saw characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=L0XMTV1GWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)