Now you might find what i write a bit weird but:
-
GranRoyal — 19 years ago(April 01, 2007 11:18 PM)
I was watching Saw 1 with a friend who happens to be a lawer the "he never actualy killed someone" quote in the movie would never stand in a court of law.
All the trap set up is to kill the victim, so good old Jig is a murderer.
Dont forget you can go to jail for complicity of murder if you help someone commiting suicide. -
death-wyvern — 18 years ago(November 19, 2007 08:09 PM)
You are absolutely right. I remember about my mum telling me a true story of a person one of her work friends knew. I've shortened this to the quickest reading possible (yet enough to still get the point):
- Poor, innocent person get burgled a couple of times by the same person
- First time was when she wasn't at home, next time she was
- She starts to fear for her life
- She ends up setting up a potentially lethal trap underneath the window this person consistently breaks into.
- This trap is triggered, and sprung onto the unsuspecting burglar
- The burglar is terribly injured and maimed by the man-sized mouse trap (something like that), and hence he takes her to court and wins. The judge says she would have most likely won if she was sitting by the window with a gun instead, because then it can be deemed her life was potentially in peril.
She lost the case, had to pay the burglar out, and was detained in jail during the court proceedings. So the above poster is correct, Jigsaw would be completely liable to all of his crimes, if not moreso than cold blooded murder.
That said, it is only a movie, and I do see Jigsaw's point of view to a degree. The extreme that he takes out on people is unethical and barbaric to say the least, but these people continually beep up the choices that life has given them. For one, I DO think the fat rapist in the latest movie (which I saw last night) deserved what he got.
Riggs, on the other hand, deserved NOTHING that was done to him. The only reason I can see Jigsaw doing what he did to him is because Riggs is the anti-Jigsaw, selfless and the helper of everybody, rather than the tormentor and judge of everybody. Jigsaw was jealous that this person is so pure.
-
koffeenkreame41-1 — 13 years ago(May 27, 2012 03:02 AM)
^^Agreed, Riggs definetely didn't deserve the stuff that happened to him in Saw 3, that was pretty tragic to me. Poor Riggs.
To me, he was an honorable character, same for Tapp in the first film.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna*beep*wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens. -
jmn080782 — 19 years ago(April 02, 2007 09:53 AM)
How is he not a murderer? By putting poison in someone's body and making them find an antedote, HE is killing them. Or by leaving someone chained to the wall with no food, that is murder. If you look at it that way, if I pull the trigger of a gun and kill someone my defense could be the gun did it. Plus, didn't he kill Danny Glover's partner in Saw 1? I guess technically no because his trap did it, but I would call that murder.
-
benjamin-154 — 19 years ago(April 03, 2007 03:10 PM)
Yes how can be not be a murdere?. well in his head he is not. Noboddy who is evil think of them selves as evil, and can you really call him evil? maybe you can, but I don't think it's that simple. He claims people have a choice, and they do actually have a choice, it's just a hard choice to make. Maybe if you think of it this way you could understand what some people say when they tell you he is not a murdere: if I start a train, then jump out of it and the train drives towards you now you have the choice to move, but don't does that make me a murdere?
Now that might not make sence for some of you, but like I started the train and drove towards you so you could choose your own fate, Jigsaw starts a trap and let 5b4people choice their own fate. Now I don't say it's the excact same thing, but maybe you can understand better what some of us people mean when we say that he is not a murdere. Personally I don't know what to call him, because I don't think it's that simple not in a movie where you can fully choose for your self how to see a character. So some of you hate Jigsw and are happy he dies and some of you don't. So if you don't agree with me please spare me from sarkacem or personal oppinion about me, because that won't help a damn thing. So is he a murdere or not. is there even a final answer? I'm still saying that the SAW movies tell the tragic tale of a man nobody understand, not even Amanda, and that is heartbreaking. well if you like to analyse them like me of course. -
Deadman2319 — 17 years ago(October 29, 2008 06:04 PM)
Villan, mabye possibly, but psychopath no Psychopaths don't think rationally he can hold conversations, plan and feel love and remorse. You could hear the remorse in his voice when he was telling Amamada that he was testing her and that she failed. Not many psychopaths can feel remorse.
and he never killed anyone
"I'm not a monster I'm just ahead of the curve." ~ The Joker -
Chris-Crow — 19 years ago(February 19, 2007 04:27 PM)
he not evil, nor a killer. and not exactly a phychopath. he is not evil becuase the whole purpose of his life is to make others' lives better. yes, most of them fail but that isnt his fault. he isnt a killer because he gives them a more then grateful way to live. they just have to do something as simple as "getting out of the chains and walking out the door". sure mayb some have to go through a little pain but the punishment fits the crime. and he isnt a psychopath, he just has extreme and to-the-point views on life.
-
benjamin-154 — 19 years ago(February 20, 2007 12:43 PM)
Jigsaw's goal is not a world where everyone has been tested or put through a trap, Jigsaw's goal, his dream is a world where it is not nessersary. He wants to get his message out, and he is willing to sacrefice everything for it, including his own life. The whole brain-operation-scene in SAW 3 shows us that he is willing to put himself through the same as his subjects.
He died knowing that the world will remember him as a killer, wich was the last thing he ever wanted. The subjects lost their life, but Jigsaw lost a bit more. Now that is tragedy.
Sorry if I spell like crap. -
oos_005s — 19 years ago(February 20, 2007 01:00 PM)
Yeah, but he did force people to mutilate themselves. Like that guy in the death mask trap even if he survived and "won" the game, he would have lost an eye. The other people that didn't really get mutilated, like Amanda, would just be traumatised for the rest of their lives. So yes, Jigsaw's goal was honorable, but the way he does it is wrong. True, he doesn't kill them himself, and true, he suffered a lot too, but it doesn't take away that the way he wants to achieve his goal is bad and kinda psycho.
I do agree that there is WAY more depth in Jigsaw's "killings" than in the killings of most other serial killer horror movies though. And that's why I like the character. -
varmour — 19 years ago(February 24, 2007 07:16 AM)
What's sad is that some people think what Jigsaw did was okay. You don't sympathize for the victims? What if they were your friends and family members, then would you still deny Jigsaw's "evilness". Anyway, people are basically saying the ends justify the means. If it makes them a better person, you're allowed to put them through inhumane, traumatic torture cells where they have to mutilate their bodies or other crap? That's the same as forcing change.
You don't force change. A Clockwork Orange had the same idea going on. They have to change out of their free will, not put through a hellish nightmare like that. I certainly thought Jigsaw interesting, and even found myself liking him at times (for his dialogue) but I certainly never believed what he was doing was right.
"future events such as these will affect you in the future" -
theinsanementalpatient — 19 years ago(February 24, 2007 07:53 AM)
He was just jealous. He knew he was knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door. He was mad he was dying so he was taking it out on the world. The whole "they don't respecty their lives" thing was just a front.
I do feel sorry for him in a weird way.
I feel more sorry for Amanda. Jigsaw turned on her.
Feed Paris Hilton! -
slimer-3 — 19 years ago(February 25, 2007 07:06 PM)
Jigsaw didn't turn on Amanda at all! Amanda betrayed Jigsaw's trust, the last test was a test for her, if she had just listened to Jigsaw, did what she said she would, she would have been fine
Amanda didn't play by the rules, so she lost the game.
Though, in truth, I don't feel bad for either of them.
I'll swallow your soul!
Liberals suck -
Ryo7 — 18 years ago(October 29, 2007 12:43 AM)
It's a little interesting if you look at it in this perspective.
Perhaps there is no more right and wrong or lines for him as far as morals go. He has one goal now that he himself is terminally ill, and that is to make people living empty lives, or double lives (like Dr. Gordon) and giving them a choice to change. They could have each sat back and died, thus taking the easy way out, or played his game and won their way out to a new life. See, the choice is still there, he just makes the easiest option seem a lot more bleak so the person is less likely to cheap out and take the easy way out.
"GoodBadI'm the guy with the Gun" - Army of Darkness - Ash (Bruce Campbell) -
death-wyvern — 18 years ago(November 19, 2007 08:23 PM)
Anyway, people are basically saying the ends justify the means. If it makes them a better person, you're all5b4owed to put them through inhumane, traumatic torture cells where they have to mutilate their bodies or other crap? That's the same as forcing change.
APPLAUDS YOU GREATLY. And that is exactly why Jigsaw is nothing but a sick, mindless, twisted freak of humanity. It is the only reason why I liked Saw 1 and 4 the best, because it is all about teaching people to respect their lives and not to keep abusing the second, third, etc. chances that life gives them. But no, the end DOES NOT justify the means.
I think Jigsaw is the most inherently evil character in modern cinema today. NO one ever hated people like Sauron, Saruman, Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader, etc. etc.
Those people are actually cool, and have great stories to tell. Jigsaw has no redeeming features whatsoever. I feel the only death he was somewhat entitled to was that of the person who killed his unborn baby. Everything on from there was just gratuitous jealousy. -
xeramx — 19 years ago(February 27, 2007 02:35 PM)
so jigsaws victims live below jigsaws standards and they must be taught a lesson, right? well who the hell is this guy to judge people he doesnt even know. how is their lifestyles affecting this old cancer patient? who thinks like that? jigsaw tries to justify his actions, saying he teaches the value of life. well it's not his job. thats not for him to decide. Am I right? Take the guy in saw 2 who was always in and out of jail for petty crimes. its not jigsaws job to teach him a lesson. thas law enforcements job.