Talk:Saw II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] "Deaths"

Is the list of deaths that was tacked onto this really necessary? They are already listed in the plot summary. BrianFG 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addison & the key

Well, during one of the commentarys or extra footage (I'm not sure on the specific one) on the SAW 2 DVD, the makers of the film talk about the concept of Addison's trap. Its revealed by one of them that if she was not so desprate for the antidote that she would have noticed the key hanging from somewhere around or in the box. I personally have watched the clip and havent seen anything resembling a key, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place or something. So, the fact is that there is a key, whether we see it or not. Watch the extras if you are not convinced. Lindsey8417 07:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I was only watching the film itself. Thanks for pointing me to the extras. I'll check it out for the reference. Alvis 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspammers...

Please don't promote fan sites with questiklonable usernames/logins in the url - you have to agree that such behaviour gives wikipedia a bad reputation (clem 12:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)).

Its part of the Saw Squad, which is officially sponsored by Saw2.com. Its not spam.(User:CyberGhostface
but why is there say "team A" in the link, and somebody replaces it by "team B" without notice - looks like promoting stuff? (clem 13:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC))
Basically the Saw Squad is an offical fan team sponsored by Lions Gate Films. You join the site to promote the film in exchange for points which can be redeemed for prizes. One of the ways to promote is by giving people links to the site. Some people here put links to get points. I thought it was unfair that they weren't telling people what they were doing so I wrote 'From Mephistopheles' which is my account so people would know I was from the Saw Squsd. (User:CyberGhostface))
So basically you say you insert links into Wikipedia to earn prizes and support a viral marketing scheme? What's your definition of linkspam? (clem 22:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC))
Dude, there's no virus. Its sponsored by the people who make the film. I can understand why you don't want it there so I won't upload it again but don't make it sound worse than it is. (User:CyberGhostface))
Viral marketing - not every virus has to be a malicious computer program. (clem 22:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC))
I agree with clem's assessment, a referral link is still a form of linkspam and does not have a place on an encyclopedic article. In other words, pimp your crap on a message board or some other place but not here. 65.145.212.34 18:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
sounds awfully like cheap advertising, i say we erase all things that looks like advertise

YOU Teh sux!! roxor


This article should be taken down until someone, who actually stayed awake during English class, has gone through it with a fine-toothed grammar comb....

yea, it should be taken down by us Wiki,...because we actually stayed awake in English class:P

>x<ino 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The kid in the safe at the end of the movie

I saw the movie last night, how the hell did the kid get from the house to the safe in the warehouse/factory so qickly?!?! did they have underground passages or something? or am I just too stupid to get it? 14:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

To ask this question indicates that you may not have fully understood that the video feed the police were watching was taped, not live. There is no way to say how much time elapsed between the events of the house, and the police arriving at Jigsaw's lair, but it could have been days.---Jackel 22:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] criticism discussion

User 71.115.152.104, rather than sullying up the article with a lengthy discourse, we can use the talk page to come to a consensus agreement and proceed from there. I reverted this: ---Jackel 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC) "'Spoiler: Amanda was a part of of the game so she could protect Matthew's son. The whole reason of the game was to test Detective Matthews. His son was never intended to be killed, as Amanda and Jigsaw were both playing Detective Matthew.r source. Personally, I don't see how this criticism has any basis."

-It is overwhelmingly agreed that Matthew's son was suppposed to survive the events of the house, and that Amanda was acting to protect him, however the rest of the group in the house were obviously NOT in on the ruse Jigsaw had created, and so the boy's life was very much at risk.

I also rev'ed this:

  1. Matthews can still be saved. In order for his fellow policemen to find the real house, all they need to do is bring the Tech Team to the house were the original signal was coming from, and trace that particular source.

-Why would there be anything in the "real" house broadcasting a signal for the tech team to track? The video equipment in the 2nd house was clearly playing a recorded track, not a broadcasted one.---Jackel 21:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoundn't the criticism actually have sources? Also, shouldn't they be sited? How about some reviews for the film?Steve-O 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following, (reason in parenthesis):

  • Depending on Daniel to kick Xavier's foot, and cut his throat with the saw. (Even Jigsaw's most meticulous planning could not predict exactly how a certain person would die. This is overboard.)
  • Depending on Amanda's ability to stick the needle into Matthews, who is a trained police man. (Despite Matthew's mental state, and Amanda's element of surrpise, this is a decent criticism, however, Amanda makes it clear that this is "her" game, so Jigsaw may well have had no role in its planning)
  • Depending on the needle pit scene to not go as the others hope. (This doesn't even make sense)
  • Depending on Amanda to live through any attempts of murder. (See #2)

Great work,

I also deleted some of it, but i think some suker must have reverted it

I should have deleted the ones you have just deleted, but i wasn;t sure

>x<ino 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


NEW QUESTION: The criticism section refers to "at least one" trap that was unclear on how to escape it, or at least not clear enough to the victim. Which trap was this? If it's referring to the one with the "chinese arm trap", the only reason she didn't know how to get out or avoid it was because she ignored the tape and just shoved her hands in there. Is a different trap being referenced, or can this criticism be deleted?

I agree, as worded this wasn't a valid criticism. Jigsaw makes it clear enough when initially addressing the group that they would need to work together in order to get access to the various syringes scattered around the house. That some of them didn't read or interpret the clues is no doubt part of his "fun". Removed.---Jackel 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Criticism or lack of understanding?
It seems to me that the guy who worte the criticism part was not paying much attention. By the end of the movie it is more than obvius that Amanda was aware of what was going on and was protecting the kid (forgot his name). Also he never aimed for the others to survive other than by figuring out the clues. Another thing: why does it questions how much Matthews beat him and not killing him? If I where in Matthews place I would not like to kill the only person who knew where my mising son was.
Other thing: What if the survivors escaped? What if they had gone to the cops (like Amanda in the first movie)? Is not like they where gonna catch Jigsaw anyway.
I'm thinking about editing the 'criticism' part now because I consider the points expressed there are not valid. To tell you honestly they sound like the guy who wrote them did not pay any attention to the movie. Any objections? -nnfolz
I object. And how dare you accuse me of not paying attention to the movie, when it's evident you lack fundamental English reading comprehension. Let me spell it out for you:
You said "...it is more than obvius that Amanda was aware of what was going on and was protecting the kid (forgot his name)" Never is it implied that Amanda didn't know what's going on! She is only 1 person, and events could have easily transpired much differently than they did, resulting in her being unable to protect the boy.
You said he never aimed for the others to survive other than by figuring out the clues" Exactly. If they figured out the clues, and got the antidotes, presumably they would have lived. If they lived (and eventually escaped, don't you think this would have complicated Jigsaw's plans?
You said "why does it questions how much Matthews beat him and not killing him? If I where in Matthews place I would not like to kill the only person who knew where my mising son was." Tossing someone over tables, slamming him into walls, pounding him repeatedly in the head wouldn't hurt someone!? Matthews was enraged, very likely not thinking rationally. Given the advanced age and health of Jigsaw, and the ferocity of the attack, its very plausible that Jigsaw could be knocked out, or worse.
You said '"What if the survivors escaped? What if they had gone to the cops (like Amanda in the first movie)? Is not like they where gonna catch Jigsaw anyway." They would know where the real house is. Think about it.---Jackel 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice going:P

>x<ino 17:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
'You seem to forget that they where watching a video'
Remember that everything that went on in the house was recorded therefore he made his plan acording to the recording. He wasent counting on the improbability of things he KNEW they where gonna happend because he already SAW them. Another thing I wan't to state is that you don't cite your sources. Please don't tell me the critcism section is based on your opinion alone, it is not encyclopedic.
The things you state very well may have complicated his plans, but not ruin them. The fact that it was a video feed meant it could have been recorded days earlier and even in the event something went wrong he would have enough time to fix it. To summarize even if they did knew where the real house was and even if all of the prisoners escaped and got the antidotes it would have been ok. Remember: it was a VIDEO and as such he already knew what was going to happen (not counting on it or predicting it). Also at the end we find out that Amanda was aware of everything all along and that she WAS protecting the boy. Yes, there is a posibility that she may have failed, but since it was a VIDEO it dosent matters because Jigsaw would have changed his plans acordingly. Also: Matthew did not inteded to kill jigsaw, he wanted to break him into telling the location of his son.---nnfolz
Sorry, but "days" did NOT elapse from the time the boy disappeared, to the time the police discovered the "iron maiden" scene. Jigsaw knew setting that "game" into motion would lead the police and Matthews to him (counted on it, in fact) and fairly soon at that. Therefore, he would make sure he had the boy in "a safe place" before then. Subtract the time it took for the events of the house to transpire, and for Amanda to discreetly get the boy to Jigsaw's hideout, then return to the house before the police arrived, and it couldn't have been days earlier, but hours. You can stop repeating that Amanda was in on Jigsaw's plans, I've made it clear that this not a point of contention. Finally, perhaps Matthews WAS only trying to beat information out of Jigsaw (for now I'll set aside my opinion that Matthews had completely lost control in that instant) but the fact remains, the blunt force trauma Jigsaw was taking could very easily have rendered Jigsaw unconscious, caused internal bleeding, etc, making him unable to take a ride with Matthews, which WOULD have RUINED his plans ---Jackel 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I told you before: it matters not how fast the police discovered the clues. it dosent even matters if they didnt because the events where ALREADY recorded. Even if they took months to get there the plan would have worked. The movies makes it look like at least 2 days passed between the arguing scene between father and son and the moment Jigsaw is found. I'd have to watch it again to get the exact times, but it ws at least a day and If we consider the fact that the rcording lasted about 2 hours it is more than enough time to get everything ready and just wait.---nnfolz


As soon as the police determined that an officer's son was involved in the incident, that office would be relieved of duty on the matter. There would have been a lot more cops on the scene -- patrol cops, administrators, as well as SWAT. Jigsaw would have been taken into custody for questioning almost immediately. Crime scene investigators would have surmised that the monitors might not be live.

[edit] Dude don't revert it again.

You already lost the debate and you don´t cite your sources. And altough your opinion is valuable to many, posting it on wikipedia is not the place for them. This is not a site for individuals to downgrade the movies they see fit (especially if it comes from lack of understanding of the movie itself) so please refrain of adding a 'criticism' part where you cite no sources. If you find a verifiable link that supports your claims I'll be happy to stop protesting that section, but meanwhile I can´t allow a section that says: 'numerous critics said this and that' when its only coming from your self.---nnfolz

I'm sorry, were you addressing me, or pjk? I haven't done any reverting (yet), but I certainly didn't "lose" any argument with you. In fact, so far your only valid objection is the lack of tood it a few days later?" Like I told you before, it does not matter because the whole thing was citation for the Rube Goldberg remark, which I did find in a critic's published review, but neglected to cite. I'll link to that source when I find it again, but since these criticisms are valid, (several you didn't even argue, preferring to dump the whole section) they will stay in this article. ---Jackel 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
First things first: My apologies. I thought it was you who reverted the changes (by the way I din't just deleted the cricism section, I fixed some minor ortographical erros here and there and added a new trivia). On the other hand the criticism section that you wrote is not valid because:
1. jigsaw did not count on unpredictable events to happen because he was recording them. He was aware of what was going to happen because the action was not a live feed. He already knew Amanda and David where going to survive, he already knew the rest where going to be killed he already knew the big guy would rip his own skin off and he already knew how the whole thing ended.
2. You make assumtions that are totally irrelevant like: "What if Matthews had not understood the clue to Jigsaw's location, or undersrecorded and the boy was already in captivity.
3. The whole 'interraction' with police team part is irrelevant and I don't see what so 'improbable' about those.
Like I told you before: therefore he didn´t had to predict a thing because he already knew the outcome.-nnfolz
For the record, this: "What if Matthews had not understood the clue to Jigsaw's location, or understood it a few days later?"was added by another wikipedian, not myself. I considered editing it or at least rephasing it, but decided to not exert my will unnecessarily on the Wiki, something I'd ask you to consider. In the months since I added this section, no one other than you objected to its existance, 1 person actually tagged it for expansion. I believe this puts you in the minority. Our central disagreement is that YOU still believe months could have passed from the time the boy was taken to the time of the police raid on Jisaw's hideout, but you at least conceeded that a 2nd viewing is needed to be certain. Even if the events of the house DID take place long before Jigsaw's capture, allowing Jigsaw to devise a different machination for Matthews, it would not change the fact that Jigsaw deliberated overly-complicated his own plans, and put his protege needlessly at risk for no apparent reason. Regarding the police interaction, saying its "irrelevant" is pretty vague, I thought I was pretty clear in why each item was significant, please explain what you don't understand.---Jackel 16:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that the film is not perfect (i thought the first one is superior for that matter), but the criticism that were writen in that section are not valid simply because the movie says otherwise. Like I told you before it seems like the persons who wrote it need to watch the movie again because they missed out some important details.
I never said months took place, I said days. What I said about month was "even IF it took months..." and not that it actually took that long. Yes, the plan is very complex, but the way it is executed leaves litle room for error. Yes David and Amanda where in real danger, but well, so was Jigsaw himself lying in a pool of poisoned blood in the first movie. I guess what i'm trying to say is that what was satated in the section in question is not actual criticism but rather complains about someone who clearly missed some key plot points. I ask of you to state what is it your truly wanting to criticize and sustain those allegations with facts that the movie dosent contradict. Dude if you want to critize the movie is fine with me, but at least have some bases to it. By the way, you failed to actually refute my statements. I ask: What's so 'improbable' about the police interractions?---nnfolz
This really isn't how a debate works. I say something, than you say WHY you think its wrong, then I respond with my reason why your arguements are off-base, then you respond with why mine are, etc. Nonetheless, I'll reiterate in detail:
I said Matthews (fueled by rage and grief) beating him up just enough, but not so much as to render him unconscious, which would have foiled his plans entirely. As has been already mentioned, Jigsaw was in very frail health. Matthews wasn't looking out for Jigsaw's welfare when he was administering all that damage, he was raging. Healthy people die from taking a blow to the head, its very convenient that Jigsaw wasn't too injured to be able to trick Matthews.
I said The police "tech team" taking at least 2 hours (the amount of time until the safe would open) to arrive onsite and trace the false signal, leaving Jigsaw enough time to "play his game" with Matthews. Again, I think this is pretty self-explanatory. Jigsaw needed TIME, he needed to be able to put Matthews through an emotional wringer, to test his self-control. What if they figured out the signal's origin in 15 minutes? Matthews is out the door, and Jigsaw dies in a cell somewhere. How convenient that it took the time Jigsaw required.
Finally, I said Upon Matthews "losing" the game (as he did), counting on his ability to elude the rest of the police from following them. How many police, medics, etc were at the foundry, a major crimescene and the hideout of one of the most wanted murderers? If anyone followed them, it would kind of spoil Amanda/Jigsaw's plans for Matthews, so wasn't it convenient that Matthews was able to slip away unseen with the prime suspect!? All these were simply more examples of how Jigsaw's overly complex plans, with a great deal left to chance, somehow happen to work out perfectly.---Jackel 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed someone reverted it again and added citations. I took the time to read the articles cited and changed the section summarizing the criticism in the articles in a few sentences. I also deleted (again) the parts that I consider not to be actuall criticism but the posting of someone who missed some key plot points. Please share your toughts on this one.---nnfolz
I appreciate your efforts at a comprimise, but I honestly think the criticisms you selected are worse. Bad acting?? I can't think of any movie that HASN'T had at least one critic say it was poorly acted, although I personally thought the acting was fine. The fact that there was little character development of the housemates isn't really valid either, since the story wasn't really about them at all. The remark about Jigsaw not being "mysterious" enough is more of a comparision to the first film, which really isn't relevant.
Back to my criticisms, the reason I chose to cite those articles was because they made mention of the Rube Goldberg-ian style with which Jigsaw complicated his own plans--the overriding point behind these criticisms, which I have repeatedly failed to impress upon you. Jigsaw is a smart person, (probably genius, based on his intricate deathtraps, knowledge of chemicals, engineering, etc) but he puts 8 wildly unpredictable personalities faced with their own imminent mortality, and who knows how many ways to die in a house along with a boy whose life is the key to his whole convoluted plan (set aside the timing of the events in the house, and admit it would require a lot of time, money, and planning for Jigsaw to abduct all these people, prepare the house, etc., and with Jigsaw's advanced cancer, who knows how much time he has left to try something else?!) and then he puts photographic proof of the boy's relation to a person all these people would very much like to hurt. Oh, then he puts a lone girl in charge of keeping the boy alive. I can't think of any other way to express it: this fails its internal consistancy, and as a result, the specific examples I mentioned are valid.---Jackel 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The examples you cited are not valid because they consider right something that is wrong, they are based on a wrong 'fact'. Yes the plan was complicated and I kind of agree with the Rube Goldberg part, but still is clear that because it was a recording the hipothetical scenarios presented in the section are not valid. They are a basically a bunch of 'what if' questions that are already answerd in movie or make no sense at all. I don´t see why stating jigsaw motive has anything to do with this debate. So what if he is samart or dub? He already knew how the whole thing ended so he COULD have counted on those events to plan his actions acordingly.---nnfolz
If you'd bothered to read it, none of the content you keep removing has anything to do with the amount of time that transpired between the prerecorded events in the house, and the time the police captured Jigsaw, thus your argument that Jigsaw would have had ample time to come up with some other plan is moot. It really falls on YOU to state your dissention with the refined examples, but you have ignored the specifics I addressed on 21:43, 3 February 2006, and thus have provided no basis for repeatedly removing them. ---Jackel 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read my last post in this discussion? Come on man, it really seems to me that you want that criticism section there because either your stubborn or you did not like the movie and you want to mislead people into the same flawed analysis that made you think that way. Like I've told you before: your arguments are not valid because they are based on a wrong 'fact' and they are a basically a bunch of 'what if' questions that are already answerd in movie or make no sense at all. Nnfolz 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I read your last post. Yes, I am very stubborn. No, for whatever its worth, despite its flaws, I really enjoyed this movie. No, I am quite convinced that I am not misleading anyone into my "flawed analysis". Since your reasons for removing the following are because they are "wrong" and/or "based on the wrong fact" and/or "make no sense at all", stop regurgitating the same arguments and IDENTIFY and SPECIFY what is wrong and/or based on a wrong fact" and/or "nonsensical":
(a) That Jigsaw put confined Matthew's son in a house with people who had a very good reason to kill him, and that the boy's survival was intergral to Jigsaw's plans regardless of it he could have made new plans with whatever brief amount of life he had left.
(b) That when Matthews beat the everloving shit out of Jigsaw (who expected this result if Matthews "lost") Jigsaw, in his frail condition, was counting on not being killed, or at the very least knocked unconscious, and thus unable to complete his plans for Matthews.
(c) That Jigsaw would have no meaningful basis to expect that the police "tech team" would require enough time to trace the signal to give Jigsaw an adequate amount of time to test Matthews.
(d) That if Matthews lost the "game", he would be able to slip past the police presence undetected and unfollowed.
Again, the only response I will accept from you are SPECIFIC responses to any of the 4 points I've made, none of which have anything to do with the fact of your redundant and pointless argument "the whole thing was a video" and that the timeline (at least for now) is unclear. The POLICE WERE IN THE ROOM WITH JIGSAW, he WASN'T RECORDING THEM so he HAD NO IDEA HOW THEY WOULD PLAY OUT and regardless of how much time between them capturing Jigsaw and the events in the house, these were notable, unpredictable, improbable aspects of his plan that happened to work out for his benefit. Anything less than this will result in me revising this section until I am satisfied you've logically refuted them.---Jackel 01:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let´s break this down (again):
You said: a) That Jigsaw put confined Matthew's son in a house with people who had a very good reason to kill him, and that the boy's survival was intergral to Jigsaw's plans regardless of it he could have made new plans with whatever brief amount of life he had left
---> They had no reason for killing him because they knew not who he was. And still even if they did It wound´t have help them. From your points this is the onlyone that I consider valid because (like I told you a thousand times before) he really had no way of knowiing if he was goind to survive. Of course he did what he could to help him but there was no way of being sure the boy was going to survive.
You said: (b) That when Matthews beat the everloving shit out of Jigsaw (who expected this result if Matthews "lost") Jigsaw, in his frail condition, was counting on not being killed, or at the very least knocked unconscious, and thus unable to complete his plans for Matthews.
---> Matthews was aware the whole time of what he was doing. He was preaty much aware that he could not kill Jigsaw because therefore he would had no way of finding his son (or so he thought). We know this by the reaction of the other police officers. His objective with the beating was to break him into telling (wich he thought he did at the end) and not to kill him because it was more than obviuos that would have been counter productive.
Your said: (c) That Jigsaw would have no meaningful basis to expect that the police "tech team" would require enough time to trace the signal to give Jigsaw an adequate amount of time to test Matthews.
---> Of course he did, we're talking about an electronic/engenieering/planing genius. We had no reason to believe he could not have estimate that amount of time it would take for a signal to be traced. Still his plan would have worked because lets say they found the sgnal, say... in an a hour. Lets ssay they take 5 minutes to get to the house figuere out that they where fooled and came back. Still the game with Matthew and his son would not have been ruined because they found nothing, no bodies, no people, nothing. The boy would still be in the safe and matthews would still be trying to find him.
You said: That if Matthews lost the "game", he would be able to slip past the police presence undetected and unfollowed
---> Now... I don´t even know what to say to this one. It's like watching a movie and in the end when the good guy shoots the bad guy questioning yourself 'what if he had missed that last shot?'. Of course you conviniently forget the fact that he was escaping with a police officer who of course had knowlege of where the other cops where and they took an exit nobody was aware of.
Dude I suggest that you watch the movie again because your statements don't agree with what is shown in the movie. Please quit your stubburness and stop asking me the same things over and over again when I have already refuted your arguments. I'm getting tired of having to write the same thing over and over again. I might as well next time copy and paste my previous post. Please take the time to analyze what im saying and let it all soak in before answering, why? because it seems to me that yo already know that your wrong, but will never acept it and I bet that long after this issue is settled and long after I stop watching this article you will come and add the criticism section with all the unfounded criticism just like it was before I quiestioned it. So dude, take the time to read and think before you write and try not to write arguments that had already been refuted over and over again. Nnfolz 13:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


WILL YOU TWO STOP!

what's the matter with you two, aruging over a damn movie

Now what is the problem, explain it cleary, because it seems, one of you is adding a critism about the movie, while the other is dening it wrong

>x<ino 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you bother reading the discussion?
i would love someone elses opinion.Nnfolz 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I would, but too long but it seems, you too kept on arguing about the critism

Now tell me what's going on!
">x<ino and Out!" >x<ino 03:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


As far as I understand, Amanda's ultimate goal was to use Daniel as a bait to lure Matthews in. She, or John for that matter had no intention of killing him, cause he was innocent of any wrongdoings. Rest of the captives were criminals and they were indeed supposed to survive the game on their own, which they could have if Xavier didnt get all crazy, ironically Xavier was the only one who discoverd the numbers and the rainbow clue. John and/or Amanda knew the captives very well, and they probably planned ahead for Xavier's actions in latter of the movie. They knew that the captives wouldn't be able to coexist due to their conflicting nature. Xavier was ultimately was main catalyst of the group, as he was planned to be by John/Amanda. His actions directly or indirectly ended lives of 4 people in the group (shot Gus's eye, forced Obi to get into the oven I guess, hit Glenn with the nail bat or whatever that was, and allowed Addison bleed to death, although he probably wouldnt be able to help her if he tried), and the duo probably planned for that as well. He is indeed an interesting character as he seemed to have gone completely insane, yet he was the only one who discovered how to get out. About the whole Matthews/Daniel situation, John/Amanda knew that Matthews wasnt patient and reasonable enough to comply with John's warnings and hints..(You will find your son in a safe and secure(d) condition, Daniel was found in a safe and was secured in a sense that he was tied up, although the normal interpretation would work too), however why did John have to wait till Matthews smashed him around the room and broke his finger to take him to the location of the captives, I thought he HAD to take him there in order to allow Matthews meet his end, I guess he wanted Matthews to beat him to a point where he wouldnt be able to live for much longer, didnt he die in the car? The whole thing seemed to be an initiation ritual for Amanda and perhaps a reincarnation of John into Amanda, it appeared as if John "died", when Amanda, wearing the mask, sprang out from the tub.--Gusiman 23:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Timeline

There seems to be some disagreement over the timeline. It cannot have been months or even days (plural). (1) Eric goes to police station to pick up the arrested Daniel, (2) Eric and Daniel argue, (3) Daniel says that he "thinks he should go back to Mom's" and Eric yells at him "then go", (4) Eric feels bad for his harsh words "earlier" that same day, but he can't get Daniel on the mobile, (5) We are given the impression that Eric would like to go to his son, but Eric's sergeant sends him to crime scene where he meets up with Kerry, (6) Kerry mocks Eric when he refuses to help her with the case, (7) Eric, unable to sleep (because of Kerry's mocking?) later that same night has an epiphany about Wilson Steel, (8) the police raid the factory and confront Jigsaw. Daniel had to have been taken between the time that he argued with Eric, and when the raid on the factory and playback of the house events ensued. Events 1-7 were all within a day (or just over a day). The events inside the house cannot have taken more than 3 hours (just over 2 if warning about dying from gas was accurate). It is entirely plausible in the timeline that Daniel was taken shortly after he walked away from Eric, placed in the house, and while Eric was busy with other crime scene and fighting his own demons, his son was fighting for his life in the house. Daniel was already in the safe when Eric was in the next room in the factory. If Eric had followed the rules, then father and son would have left together after the timer finished counting down and the safe opened. Instead, he failed the test by beating John up and making John show him the house. Game over. 58.162.234.194 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] late release in australia

What was the reason for this? Since the first few sentences of the introduction attempt to make a point out of it, it might be worthwhile to find out why. I've been looking for some information but can't seem to locate any. TrianaC 09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

For anyone interested, I'd suggest breaking up the plot section into subsections. Cburnett 03:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've bee lñooking at it for quite some time, watching it grow. I haven't said anything, but im not so sure we need so big a section. i believe just a short synopsis will do, but i don't have time to fix this right now, maybe in a couple of weeks.Nnfolz 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated it. it actually made it longer but it's much clearer now I think. I updated the Saw I wiki yesterday too Droidguy1119 10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda and the Needle Pit

How did not Amanda not die of air embolism? She fell into a pit of syringes filled with nothing but air! ¿JoeDestructive¿

How do you know what the syringes were filled with, and furthermore, that she had any serious injections into her?--CyberGhostface 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I doubt they were filled with any chemicals, and I imagine that landing hard on a pile of needles would press more than one into your body on impact, but you're right, maybe they were all already compressed, preventing anything (like air) from being pumped into her... ¿JoeDestructive¿
Yeah, it seemed to me like that the needles were basically just serving the purpose of a regular nail. Oh well. Nqnpipnr 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar, spelling, punctuation

Guys, this article reads like a 15-year-old's blog. It's embarassing. The passive sentences, the typos, the run-ons, it's really quite bad. Why don't I fix it? I haven't seen the movie. Thanks! 68.190.171.110 06:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If the only thing you're complaining about is grammatical errors and not facts from the film then there's no reason why you shouldn't fix it.--CyberGhostface 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Cluse

Upon looking at the history, there was an edit by me changing all the cast names to "Amanda Cluse". I did not do this (I don't even know what the name is) so either its a glitch or someone hacked into my sn. Either way, I've changed my password.--CyberGhostface 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions after watching

I just finished watching the Uncut DVD of Saw II I rented, but I have a few questions: was Amanda working together with Jigsaw the whole time or was she just converted to his 'cause' after being the only one to successfully get a syringe (excluding Daniel who I guess had the antidote before waking up?). Also, where in Saw I was the pig mask? I don't remember that at all! JoachimK 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Amanda was working with Jigsaw the whole time as an apprentice in the second film. She was working to keep Daniel alive in the house, so that she could test her victim, Daniel's father. The pig mask was worn by Jigsaw in the first film when capturing both Adam and Lawrence.
Thanks for your answers. But so how did both Amanda and Daniel manage to survive the gas when there was only one antidote in the safe? Who used the syringe in the safe? JoachimK 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't explictly shown, but the most plausible explanation I've seen proposed that Amanda had taken an antidote prior to entering the house, as evidenced by her not showing symptoms of gas exposure. Daniel (who was showing effects) would then be able to use the syringe in the safe. ---Jackel 17:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
what are the difference between the unrated version and the theatrical version? will someone please tell me please. please explain the deleted scenes in the uncut version. erison
Done. --USAF04 05:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw II: Uncut

could anyone please post something about the deleted scenes somewhere in the article. some guy did it on Saw 1. i couldn't find any information about the deleted scenes in google, and i really want to know what's it about.

[edit] about the rube goldberg thing in the article.

I don't quite agree with what the critics said about the rube goldberg plans. you see, jigsaw doesn't really have total control on the whole situation nor does he has any plan Bs. the task of amanda making sure daniel is alive is very dangerous and a risky one. anything could happen. did jigsaw expect xavier would go crazy and kill everyone? no. did he expect daniel would eventually cut xavier's throat? no. it was a totally out of control situation in the bathtub in the end. the two just got lucky they survived xavier. it was pure luck. so yeah, i don't think everything goes accordingly to plan like how jigsaw wanted, like what Tobin Bell himself mentioned and the critics also.

I think you misunderstood...the film critics share your opinion that Jigsaw's plans left too many things were left to chance, and only for the sake of the plot did certain unpredictable things happen so Jigsaw's schemes would work. Tobin Bell's comments oppose this view, and argue that Jigsaw had other preparations in place that we never saw to account for the unknown. Ultimately, its up to each person to decide if this is plausible. ---Jackel 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited the plot

It says it's long and I did make it longer. Maybe that's not what it needs but at least all the details are in there now. I updated the Saw wiki last night as well. Droidguy1119 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but your plot summary was far too long. I edited it down to a much more comprehensible reading. Please take a look at the guidlines for what is expected in a plot summary. For example, is it really necessary to mentionn every little thing Michael discovers when he awakens in the room? Little things like that can be easily avoided. Nqnpipnr 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was working on another summary also, came here to upload it and found you had beaten me to it! BrianFG 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summary and Expanded Plot

I added a summary of the plot for people who did not want to have to read the detailed, spoiler-filled plot, and also to match it with the Saw (film) and Saw III articles. If there are any objections, please discuss. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I'm not sure it should have been removed in the first place, just edited. Kudos for deleting the "deaths" section as well. Utterly unnecessary. BrianFG 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/w/Talk%7ESaw_II_9849.html"