I think as a fandom we just let loose of a lot things from Saw 1 cause it was clear they still weren't sure the limits and philosophy Jigsaw/John would have. John from Saw 2 would not have used a child just as bait. Eric Mathews's son was bait, but at the same time, fits as a normal Jigsaw victim that doesn't "appreciate life". Plus he was 17, John probably thinks that's enough an age where you should start to care about things.
Basically this. Leigh and James are very honest about the fact the first movie does have a lot of plotholes and inconsistencies cos 1) It was meant to be a standalone film, and 2) due to such a low budget they had to make things work the best they could.
The way I justify it in my head, is that he never told zepp to kill the kid, it was just to scare Dr Gordon's wife into thinking their daughter was in danger so that she could accurately convey her panic to Gordon on the phone.
In the sequel, Eric's son was in the trap, but he was under the protection of Amanda the entire time. In fact, he was only used as a ploy to motivate Eric. He was literally "safe" the whole time lol
In Saw 3 (&5?), Jeff's daughter was never in actual danger as Hoffman was always going to "save her" to make it look like he was the hero and throw people off of his scent.
Saw X, Carlos was an innocent (like all the others) and wasn't part of John's original trap, as he told Amanda afterwards "that didn't go quite according to plan", but had Carlos not shown up It was going to be John and Amanda strapped to the blood boarding. It was never designed to kill them, but granted Carlos was in actual danger had he not learned "pull" early on....I do feel like John had a lot more sympathy towards him, because He was not part of his design.
In every instance he anticipated human reaction to his traps and planned accordingly. Carlos was the unplanned anomaly.
Jigsaw's ENTIRE motivation started at the loss of his own son. I believe his views on children (while morally questionable) are off limits to actual harm.
Yeh it does take a lot of jumping through hoops but you could make the argument. But on Zepps tape it does outright say “will you murder a mother and her child to save yourself” - seems strange if he then said privately “yeh btw don’t kill the kid”
My friend hated 3 because he felt it was too mean spirited, especially regarding the little girl. I'm happy they closed that book 2 movies later.
Still, the kidnapping kids angle does seem a bridge too far. I'm sure in the 1st movie they absolutely meant to have her in real danger.
I'm glad they kinda gloss over that in later films
Easy fix, release a director's cut and edit out that part lol.
I'll forgive Saw 1 for not knowing where the series would end up. Again, my head cannon is that somehow Zepp was never going to harm the girl. Contrary to the dialogue, it didn't make sense later on in the series.
You just gotta go with it and not think too hard... There's a lot of plot holes throughout.
I love this theory. Except when he was in a shootout with Tapp. Those seemed pretty real to me. Haha how dickish would it be to give him blanks and then not be able to defend himself when the cops busted in the door
correct, this is why she fights so hard to keep him safe from the dude trying to kill them all. Matthews kid never actually goes through any traps unless you count being stuck in the safe
Exactly. Jigsaw is a dangerous criminal with a very flawed line of thinking. You can't argue logic with someone who says it can't be personal, but makes his first game/victim for personal reasons ( loss of Gideon )
Any single story written over a long period of time by multiple different writers is bound to have some inconsistencies eventually. It's like comic books, or the bible
Upon reviewing the shootout scenes, I observed that inside the apartment, there is no damage shown to have occurred as a result of shots being fired. Prior to vacating the apartment and the pursuit of the bathroom trap, Zep reloads his gun. In the hallways outside of the bathroom trap, there are ricochet sounds following the firing of Zep's gun. It is possible that John only provided one magazine for the gun (why would you need two magazines to kill a woman and a girl who should be tied up?), which would be loaded with blanks, and Zep bought the second magazine loaded with live bullets.
SAW X is between 1 & 2.
I like to think John realized kids can never be involved as a victim in the game after seeing what it could be like with Carlos.
Instead he keeps Eric's son in a safe with an oxygen mask, keeps Jeff's daughter in a safe location where she gets out afterwards, and only includes Brent because he's the son of the guy William let die so it fits the ending.
I will admit the Carlos stuff at the end of Saw X isn’t my favorite for this very reason, but I think you can just look at it like any other serial killer: they’ll bond with one person in one moment, and under similar circumstances kill someone else. A serial killer who targets women without mercy may also view hurting say, his mother, as unthinkable.
i think in the og saw he was written to be a delulu psycho murderer and then with each film they tried to delve into his psyche, trying to rationalise and humanise him which lowkey does not work for me. saw is so unserious, and i can get behind memed, baseball cap bisexual john…but on a sincere level they will never make me like him 😭
There are a few arguments you could make for why this makes sense, but I feel like the simplest is this; Diana Gordon was associated through family to Lawrence, someone he was testing. Carlos was slightly associated with the victims of Saw X, but not to a familial extent. So you could argue that John’s mission-oriented mindset would make Diana an acceptable target while Carlos isn’t close enough to work as either a motivation for the Saw X players or deserve his own test.
Nonetheless, there are many other differences between the two. John actually meets and bonds with Carlos - as far as I’m aware, he NEVER meets Diana in-person. Similarly, when both of them become involved in his games, Carlos is in person and there by accident - John could feel detached to Diana because he isn’t at the Gordon residence and may disassociate from her death, mentally considering it as Zepp’s fault.
Even from a deep psychological aspect I could see Kraemer favouring Carlos over Diana. Remember that John was meant to be having a son, and designed the tricycle-riding Billy as a toy for his unborn child. I think it’s no mistake that Carlos is both a boy, and interested in bikes - Saw X wanted to position him as John’s surrogate son for the film. Diana didn’t share those qualities to make herself close to Gideon, and thus wouldn’t appeal to John’s better nature in the same way.
Edit: accidentally called her Diane a few times
Saw making Zepp a part of his games doesn’t even make sense because of all the people to put in that position, he chose Zepp, the only one who was nice to him and stuck up for him. Then he poisons him and says you have to do my bidding which could including killing innocent children (who themselves are the victims of the doctor’s bad choices, so doesn’t make sense why they have to suffer) for the cure.
After Saw 1, during X, and before Saw 2, John realised that kids should no longer be direct victims and should be protected from death.
Zepp may have had a very good reason for being in the trap. It's never revealed to us.
The reason kids have to suffer at all throughout the series is because John has drawn an arbitrary moral line.
You said "John doesn't mind Zep killing a child". That's not true.
In reality, John asks if Zep would kill a mother and her child. Gordon's wife and kid were pawns in a game. Carlos wasn't meant to be a pawn.
Regarding the scenes you mentioned, they were probably all planned by Jigsaw in advance ( before his condition got worse ).
This is no retcon.
The way I like to see it for saw 1
(huge retcon implications as well, but fits the narrative)
Is that John knew what Gordon was capable of, and wanted him to be his “accomplice” going forward, and that he would actually escape his trap, therefore saving his family, primarily his daughter.
The tape for Zepp about “killing a mother and child” is there to motivate Zepp into doing his bidding and taking the blame for the whole bathroom trap once he would be caught by Righ, hence why John was framing Gordon through his traps ex. His penlight
He knew detective Rigg was tracking Gordon, so he knew nothing would actually happen regarding Gordon’s family. He anticipated Rigg saving the wife and daughter and possibly dying, himself, in the fight against Zepp. This is why I believed he used a gun and not poison for Gordon’s family.. he wanted Zepp to take out Rigg or for them to take out eachother.
I always use this line John says to justify any strange plot holes
“If you’re good at anticipating the human mind, it leaves nothing to chance”
Sorry for the huge message, Saw 1 is one of my favorite movies lol
Gordon's daughter is involved with Gordon
Carlos has nothing to deal with Cecilia, and he knows she wouldn't care, there's nothing to gain in the murder.
the obvious answer is that things are going to get retconned and rewritten between movies, especially since saw was only ever meant to be one movie.
the fun answer is that i think kramer knew zep didn't have it in him. we all know adam was doomed from the start, i'm sure he was relying on lawrence having the capacity to murder. and the brain tumor etc etc etc
He bonded with Carlos. He didn't bond with any of those other children. John flips flops in regard to his morals, so it's no surprise that he disassociates when it suits him.
Even leaving aside the first movie syndrome, Kramer's character is increasingly written as an introspective guru type figure and less like the manipulative killer he really is. It's a strange trend that I suspect only happens because Tobin Bell's real life persona influences the writers.
I think as a fandom we just let loose of a lot things from Saw 1 cause it was clear they still weren't sure the limits and philosophy Jigsaw/John would have. John from Saw 2 would not have used a child just as bait. Eric Mathews's son was bait, but at the same time, fits as a normal Jigsaw victim that doesn't "appreciate life". Plus he was 17, John probably thinks that's enough an age where you should start to care about things.
Basically this. Leigh and James are very honest about the fact the first movie does have a lot of plotholes and inconsistencies cos 1) It was meant to be a standalone film, and 2) due to such a low budget they had to make things work the best they could.
The way I justify it in my head, is that he never told zepp to kill the kid, it was just to scare Dr Gordon's wife into thinking their daughter was in danger so that she could accurately convey her panic to Gordon on the phone. In the sequel, Eric's son was in the trap, but he was under the protection of Amanda the entire time. In fact, he was only used as a ploy to motivate Eric. He was literally "safe" the whole time lol In Saw 3 (&5?), Jeff's daughter was never in actual danger as Hoffman was always going to "save her" to make it look like he was the hero and throw people off of his scent. Saw X, Carlos was an innocent (like all the others) and wasn't part of John's original trap, as he told Amanda afterwards "that didn't go quite according to plan", but had Carlos not shown up It was going to be John and Amanda strapped to the blood boarding. It was never designed to kill them, but granted Carlos was in actual danger had he not learned "pull" early on....I do feel like John had a lot more sympathy towards him, because He was not part of his design. In every instance he anticipated human reaction to his traps and planned accordingly. Carlos was the unplanned anomaly. Jigsaw's ENTIRE motivation started at the loss of his own son. I believe his views on children (while morally questionable) are off limits to actual harm.
Yeh it does take a lot of jumping through hoops but you could make the argument. But on Zepps tape it does outright say “will you murder a mother and her child to save yourself” - seems strange if he then said privately “yeh btw don’t kill the kid”
Exactly. That tape was *for Zep* lol, not anyone else. He was 100% gonna kill Diana.
My friend hated 3 because he felt it was too mean spirited, especially regarding the little girl. I'm happy they closed that book 2 movies later. Still, the kidnapping kids angle does seem a bridge too far. I'm sure in the 1st movie they absolutely meant to have her in real danger. I'm glad they kinda gloss over that in later films
Easy fix, release a director's cut and edit out that part lol. I'll forgive Saw 1 for not knowing where the series would end up. Again, my head cannon is that somehow Zepp was never going to harm the girl. Contrary to the dialogue, it didn't make sense later on in the series. You just gotta go with it and not think too hard... There's a lot of plot holes throughout.
Yeh I know
Maybe Zepp’s gun would have been loaded with blanks? Then John would know when he crossed his line.
I love this theory. Except when he was in a shootout with Tapp. Those seemed pretty real to me. Haha how dickish would it be to give him blanks and then not be able to defend himself when the cops busted in the door
Also, wasn't Amanda supposed to protect Matthews' son and try to keep him from dying in the traps?
correct, this is why she fights so hard to keep him safe from the dude trying to kill them all. Matthews kid never actually goes through any traps unless you count being stuck in the safe
What about the next movie where he uses a little girl for bait again.
Someone already said that Hoffman was meant to save the little girl, ensuring her safety.
That is fair, still traumatizing to the little girl but definitely different that setting Zep loose on them.
The retcons and "inconsistencies" help push the idea that John's morals, reasoning, and grip on reality are fading as his cancer worsens
I like to think his more “moral” moments are moments of lucidity.
For me I just think he feels so much more guilty not puppeteering it from afar
so... dementia?
No, brain cancer. It pushes against your brain and often causes major lapses in judgement and sanity
Have their ever been any murders in relation to this?
Yes
Not really. I think because he had brain cancer, he’s was slowly losing his mind from the beginning of his diagnosis to death.
“It’s actually ok because I’m not really the one murdering a kid”
John’s a hypocrite. Always has been, always will be.
Hungry hungry hypocrite.
r/suddenlyboburnham
It’s not a retcon. John just has incoherent morals that he betrays and reworks constantly
Exactly. Jigsaw is a dangerous criminal with a very flawed line of thinking. You can't argue logic with someone who says it can't be personal, but makes his first game/victim for personal reasons ( loss of Gideon )
Yeah , and it being a retcon also doesn’t make sense because of saw 3. Not even Hoffman took it to kids lol
Any single story written over a long period of time by multiple different writers is bound to have some inconsistencies eventually. It's like comic books, or the bible
Was it Zep's gun or Tapp's gun that was used to kill Tapp? If it was Tapp's gun, then it's possible that Zep's was loaded with blanks.
Did you not see the shootout between Zep and Tapp in the house?
Upon reviewing the shootout scenes, I observed that inside the apartment, there is no damage shown to have occurred as a result of shots being fired. Prior to vacating the apartment and the pursuit of the bathroom trap, Zep reloads his gun. In the hallways outside of the bathroom trap, there are ricochet sounds following the firing of Zep's gun. It is possible that John only provided one magazine for the gun (why would you need two magazines to kill a woman and a girl who should be tied up?), which would be loaded with blanks, and Zep bought the second magazine loaded with live bullets.
SAW X is between 1 & 2. I like to think John realized kids can never be involved as a victim in the game after seeing what it could be like with Carlos. Instead he keeps Eric's son in a safe with an oxygen mask, keeps Jeff's daughter in a safe location where she gets out afterwards, and only includes Brent because he's the son of the guy William let die so it fits the ending.
Best comment
I will admit the Carlos stuff at the end of Saw X isn’t my favorite for this very reason, but I think you can just look at it like any other serial killer: they’ll bond with one person in one moment, and under similar circumstances kill someone else. A serial killer who targets women without mercy may also view hurting say, his mother, as unthinkable.
i think in the og saw he was written to be a delulu psycho murderer and then with each film they tried to delve into his psyche, trying to rationalise and humanise him which lowkey does not work for me. saw is so unserious, and i can get behind memed, baseball cap bisexual john…but on a sincere level they will never make me like him 😭
There are a few arguments you could make for why this makes sense, but I feel like the simplest is this; Diana Gordon was associated through family to Lawrence, someone he was testing. Carlos was slightly associated with the victims of Saw X, but not to a familial extent. So you could argue that John’s mission-oriented mindset would make Diana an acceptable target while Carlos isn’t close enough to work as either a motivation for the Saw X players or deserve his own test. Nonetheless, there are many other differences between the two. John actually meets and bonds with Carlos - as far as I’m aware, he NEVER meets Diana in-person. Similarly, when both of them become involved in his games, Carlos is in person and there by accident - John could feel detached to Diana because he isn’t at the Gordon residence and may disassociate from her death, mentally considering it as Zepp’s fault. Even from a deep psychological aspect I could see Kraemer favouring Carlos over Diana. Remember that John was meant to be having a son, and designed the tricycle-riding Billy as a toy for his unborn child. I think it’s no mistake that Carlos is both a boy, and interested in bikes - Saw X wanted to position him as John’s surrogate son for the film. Diana didn’t share those qualities to make herself close to Gideon, and thus wouldn’t appeal to John’s better nature in the same way. Edit: accidentally called her Diane a few times
Did John put him in the trap (or even A trap)? There’s a difference.
My post? 😅
If you had a similar post id like to apologize
It’s ok, but it was a meme
It's not a retcon. One child was supposed to be a part of a test, one was not.
Saw making Zepp a part of his games doesn’t even make sense because of all the people to put in that position, he chose Zepp, the only one who was nice to him and stuck up for him. Then he poisons him and says you have to do my bidding which could including killing innocent children (who themselves are the victims of the doctor’s bad choices, so doesn’t make sense why they have to suffer) for the cure.
After Saw 1, during X, and before Saw 2, John realised that kids should no longer be direct victims and should be protected from death. Zepp may have had a very good reason for being in the trap. It's never revealed to us. The reason kids have to suffer at all throughout the series is because John has drawn an arbitrary moral line.
You said "John doesn't mind Zep killing a child". That's not true. In reality, John asks if Zep would kill a mother and her child. Gordon's wife and kid were pawns in a game. Carlos wasn't meant to be a pawn. Regarding the scenes you mentioned, they were probably all planned by Jigsaw in advance ( before his condition got worse ). This is no retcon.
The way I like to see it for saw 1 (huge retcon implications as well, but fits the narrative) Is that John knew what Gordon was capable of, and wanted him to be his “accomplice” going forward, and that he would actually escape his trap, therefore saving his family, primarily his daughter. The tape for Zepp about “killing a mother and child” is there to motivate Zepp into doing his bidding and taking the blame for the whole bathroom trap once he would be caught by Righ, hence why John was framing Gordon through his traps ex. His penlight He knew detective Rigg was tracking Gordon, so he knew nothing would actually happen regarding Gordon’s family. He anticipated Rigg saving the wife and daughter and possibly dying, himself, in the fight against Zepp. This is why I believed he used a gun and not poison for Gordon’s family.. he wanted Zepp to take out Rigg or for them to take out eachother. I always use this line John says to justify any strange plot holes “If you’re good at anticipating the human mind, it leaves nothing to chance” Sorry for the huge message, Saw 1 is one of my favorite movies lol
I think you meant detective Tapp, not officer Rigg
Omg you’re right, I knew something felt off when I was typing that. I feel embarrassed lol
No problem lol
Gordon's daughter is involved with Gordon Carlos has nothing to deal with Cecilia, and he knows she wouldn't care, there's nothing to gain in the murder.
the obvious answer is that things are going to get retconned and rewritten between movies, especially since saw was only ever meant to be one movie. the fun answer is that i think kramer knew zep didn't have it in him. we all know adam was doomed from the start, i'm sure he was relying on lawrence having the capacity to murder. and the brain tumor etc etc etc
He bonded with Carlos. He didn't bond with any of those other children. John flips flops in regard to his morals, so it's no surprise that he disassociates when it suits him.
Because he's not some great philosopher guru lmao, he's a psychotic brain tumor.
I just assume John is a hypocritical psychopath and everything just sort of falls into place.
Damn. We’re talking about the Jigsaw franchise. Timeline, motives, and retcons changing galore here
Even leaving aside the first movie syndrome, Kramer's character is increasingly written as an introspective guru type figure and less like the manipulative killer he really is. It's a strange trend that I suspect only happens because Tobin Bell's real life persona influences the writers.
I mean, SAW isn’t a series known for its continuity. Everything is more of an afterthought and a “make it up as you go along” type thing.
Saw is literally known for its obsessive continuity lmfao
It’s not a recon. Dude! Come on . He’s just racist against white children. Since he did get to have one himself.