Talk:Saw III/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Saw III. 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

Archive 2

This is not the first saw with nudity

In saw the guy who had to get the code that was written on the wall. and there was glass on the floor. if you look close the guy is naked. so i am going to edit the part where it says this is the first saw with nudity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.204.93 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

He was naked but you didn't see his genitalia. I've heard you do in the unrated but I haven't seen that.--CyberGhostface 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the unrated you see the guys ass and you know from seeing that that he is naked. just because a guy is naked it still counts as nudity.

Yes, but not in the theatrical film.--CyberGhostface 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it was the theatrical version or not. say if saw 3 she had clothes on then on the dvd she was naked would you consider saw 3 to contain nudity

A few plot questions

Hey I just finished watching the movie and I had a few questions: why would Chris ask Lynn for a divorce in the beginning? How could she be married to both him and Jeff at the same time? Also, what was the point of Jeff's series of tests? I mean, the only one of the three he managed to save was the judge, but after watching it appears as though he would still get his freedom even if he was to just stand and watch the people die. Is there any way he could fail? JoachimK 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris was asking Lynn to divorce with Jeff.

Part of the test was to see if Amanda could not kill Lynn (and therefore it was largely her test) and part of it was to see if Jeff could forgive Jigsaw. In both cases, they failed.--CyberGhostface 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So the fact that some of the traps in Jeff's pseudo-test were unwinnable should maybe be taken into the whole reason why Amanda fails as Jigsaw's apprentice? JoachimK 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Jeff's test. All of his tests (pseudo or otherwise) were winnable, he just hestitated through all of them. The Middle one just had more time to react than the first or third test. Bignole`

No...both Amanda's and Jeff's tests were intertwined. Jeff's was to see if he could forgive. Jigsaw was essentially his last test: as he did not forgive Jigsaw and killed him, he failed.--CyberGhostface 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did Jigsaw die? If so, how can Tobin Bell come back for IV?72.68.165.83 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All of Jeff's tests were about forgiveness. Despite the fact that he only managed to save the judge (for a while), he still made it obvious that he forgave all three of the people involved, which was the big hurdle for him. The fact that the witness, the judge, and the driver all died is almost irrelevant - he still put forth the effort to save them all, and he forgave them for their parts in the events surrounding his son's death. I think the messages on the doors help to explain that, particularly "HERE'S YOUR CHANCE." Jeff had two choices there - watch Timothy get ripped apart and consider it as punishment for killing his son, or save him. Initially he just stood there and watched, probably thinking it to be a just punishment, but he ultimately changed his mind and worked like a madman trying to make up for lost time, eventually breaking down and crying "I forgive him!" So yeah, the test wasn't to actually save everyone - that was kind of secondary. As long as he learned to forgive (which in the end he didn't) it was considered that he passed. MINI REVIEW HERE: IMO this is definitely the most cerebral (if you can call it that) of the three Saw films - I noticed a lot of people with apparently similar questions as you had walking out of the theater. I can definitely understand why some people were confused by the film - you had to pay attention a lot more than you did in the other films or you will be confused, which I really enjoyed about it. Intooblv 19:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've got somewhat of a question that should be mentioned in the plot here...What was with the the tape labelled "PLAY ME" that Jigsaw covered in wax near the end of the film? Is it just random, is it for the authorities, or more likely, does it relate to the final "game" that Jigsaw mentioned in order for Jeff to have a shot at saving his daughter? Maybe there should be a "Trivia", "Unanswered questions", or something to expand on the "Saw IV" area as well. SlyDante 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Lynn was married to Jeff should the article be changed so that it doesn't say that Chris is her husbandand that she is cheating with him? 202.72.188.124 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Lynn was married to Jeff earlier. They divorced after the death of their child, probably because Lynn could not come to terms with the changed circumstances or the changed Jeff. She went on to marry Chris, but even that marriage was headed for a divorce. Towards the end of the movie, John (Jigsaw) mocks Lynn by reminding her of the marriage vows that she had taken and had failed to uphold. Complexvanilla 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

She never married Chris. She was always married to Jeff. Their discussion of divorce was about her divorcing Jeff to be with Chris. You wouldn't have sex and then discuss divorce for yourself like that. The vows Jigsaw is mocking her about are the ones to be faithful, because she's been cheating on Jeff. Bignole 14:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What Bignole says gels with the movie. Yup. He's right! Complexvanilla 13:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Box office dispute

According to wikipedia, Saw III has as of November 18th made $104,233,290 domestically yet Boxofficemojo.com has claimed that it has only made $74,968,353 domestically, I just want to know which if these two figures is the correct one - RVDDP2501 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be the 74 mill figure. Movies.go.com lists that as the number. I'm not sure where the 104 came from..could have been vandalism. Bignole

America-centric

Is it appropriate to include the fact that Saw III is rated R in the opening paragraph? What makes the MPAA rating special? Should we also list that it was rated 18 by the BBFC and the IFCO? Or MA15+ by the OFCL? Marwood 20:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the official site does list that information on the front page. Also, listing a rating and the reasons for it also provides a reasonable segue into the statement that this film is the first in the series to feature nudity. If the statement provided no other information than the fact that this film is the first to include nudity then it could come off as a childish ("Look, there's BOOBS!"). Intooblv 14:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but the movie's official site is America-centric whereas Wikipedia isn't supposed to be. Perhaps there is a better way to introduce the statement that the film contains nudity (although again I'm unsure why that is relevant in the opening paragraph? - indeed even with the lead-in paragraph about the MPAA rating it still comes across as 'look, there's BOOBS!'). Marwood 18:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a little side-note. It should be "there are" as opposed to "there's" or "there is". "Are" is plural, "is" is singular.

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 13:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, a grammatical convention which would probably be lost on a thirteen-year-old who, having managed to sneak in, might point at the screen and yell something like "look, there's BOOBS!", kind of like how I said it. Seriously, people. intooblv 08:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh, that's a pretty fair point. lol

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw 4 Poster!?

Is the Saw 4 poster at Bloody Disgusting real?

Here's the link...

   http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1324

This is gonna be great if it is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RPGary (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

I shouldn't really be dignifying this with response but that is in no way real. The other 3 were creative with the use of bodyparts to signify the film number. Thats just lazily printed 'f o u r' on the side of an X-Ray for a film that shouldn't even have a script yet nevermind a tagline. So no it won't be real.Darkwarriorblake 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Obi?

I've never seen this Obi hallucination and I can't see why he'd be more important in there than anyone else. Where was it or should he be removed from the cast thing?

Also on a side note, what the heck was in that letter from Jigsaw to Amanda?Darkwarriorblake 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Obi was seen briefly in the background during Jigsaw's hallucination about his old love. As for the letter, that was intentionally left unsolved.--CyberGhostface 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Aight so it could be an opening for a 4th installment then. I dunno if Obi should be credited as cast for a split second barely noticeable clip though. Franky G, his body is laying right there (don't know if its Franky G but eh).Darkwarriorblake 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw 4

I'm not entirely sure if this is even relevent, but when I was at the Fangoria convention last week, Darren was there and he confirmed that he had read a script for Saw 4, meaning that it is most likely currently in the works. I've read in the newspaper that its coming to theatures October 26, '07 (though, I doubt that). Darren seemed to imply that he was going to participate in the film, but later on I heard from him that Leigh was doing another film (where he has tattoos on his neck?) so he may not be involved. Not sure; its not that important. -Lindsey8417 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

error

This page states:Tim's head, arms, and legs are attached to the metal machine in the shape of a cross, each end able to twist 180 degrees.

List of traps page:Each section begins rotating 360 degrees

The same page also says

"each end twisted one degree for every second that went by" would mean that the whole test took either a quarter of an hour or half an hour (depending on how many degrees you think each section moved) to finish, which would have left Jeff enough time to boil a kettle, sit down for a cup of tea, rig a long stick or device to pull the key out of the shotgun box safely and then let the black man down, in good enough health for them all to sit down and have another cup of tea. But on screen it looks like each thing moves 18 degrees for every second.

Also, for his bones to splinter like that, you would think that it would have to twist your arms and legs at least 360 degrees. I can just about get my legs facing backwards and my hands twisted all the way around, and it barely strains the muscles, let alone shatter my bones JayKeaton 10:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

// alex is really cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.153.126 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, if it was 360 degrees, then it would mean that Jeff had 6 minutes, if it was 180 then it was 3 minutes. That's hardly a quarter of an hour. If it turns every second, by one degree, then when it is finished it will be 360 seconds, and 180 seconds, which is 6 and 3 minutes. As for turning, you can turn your leg by yourself, but if you were strapped onto a board, so that you couldn't move any other body appropriately for comfort, it would be different. Plus, the turning point was at the foot, breaking the shin. Bignole 12:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there were five different mechanisms, two on his hands, two on his feet and one on his head. Only one spun at a time, for example his right hand was twisted 360 degrees, then stopped, then his left hand started (and so on). Thus making the total 15 minutes for 180 degrees and half an hour for 360 degrees. JayKeaton 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the head had a shorter time span, and I don't think it worked individually (i.e. the arms went together, the legs went together, the head was by itself). Plus, we have no idea how long Jeff really sat there contemplating the death of the man that killed his son. 30 seconds to us could be 5 minutes in movie time. Bignole 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok now, I just reviewed the scene in question. Each separate limb twists in turn, 5 separate rotations. There is a short gap between the 4th one (his left foot) and the 5th one (his right foot). It appears that the hands twist 180 degrees and that the feet twist more like 110 degrees. Before the head twists, it snaps the one side, then starts twisting, and it ends up (after the short snap to one side) to be around 210 degrees, but it should be noted that his death would have been certain after about 120 degrees (taking into account that the head doesn't start facing forward). That still leaves 11 minutes based on these observations. Also, the conversation between Jeff and Judge Halden seems to flow as if it is in real time, although in the craziness of it all movie time does appear to play a part. All the same, it appears that the The List Of Traps page is incorrect, I will now change it to 180 degrees. It is interesting to note how much extreme damage is caused by such small rotations of The Rack. Unless there were more rotations that didn't appear on camera, for example they unseen by camera twisted a whole 360 degrees plus the 180/110 degrees that I noticed, it seems completely unreasonable for the bones in the legs to shatter and for the arms to appear as if they were rung out like wet laundry. If they did in fact twist an extra 360 degrees to cause that kind of damage, then that would bring the total time to over 35 minutes until Timothy Young's neck snaps. Either way, the claim made by the directors that one second passes for each degree seems to be completely out of whack, I am going to add a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} notice to that also, because I really don't see how they could have said such a thing. JayKeaton 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there is a quote by the director saying so, and a source to the quote then it's been verified. The legitimacy of his claims are not in question and shouldn't be in question because it holds no encyclopedic value if the "movie" is wrong. It isn't like a documentary that should be factually accurate, it's a fictional movie. It would be like contesting a goof in the fact that an eyeball wouldn't pop out of its socket exactly the way "so and so" film shows it to happen. Remember, editing is the key to understanding this, and all of the parts could have been turning at the same time, "1 degree per second". 1 degree would be barely noticable, and they usually only show one part at a time, it would be almost impossible to tell if they all started one after the other or at the same time. And how did you review the scene?? Bignole 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed it via a Youtuber, I checked a Youtube of both the rated and unrated scenes (it appears that the unrated one shows more of the actual twisting). I know it is only wikipedia, but the little things, like one page saying 180 degrees and another stating 360 degrees, sort of bugs me. It's the little discrepancies that ruin wikipedia for me. And it appears that there are no citations on the The List Of Traps page JayKeaton 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand if one page says one thing and another page says something else. The plot needs to be trimmed A LOT, and one of the things that could help that is not to describe exactly what the trap does in detail. We have a "lists of traps" page, there's no reason to give details on it (which would help with discrepancies among pages). Bignole 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw III Unrated scenes

When the Saw III Unrated DVD arrives, could someone add a lists of the different/additional scenes that appear in the movie, just like what they did with Saw II? - RVDDP2501 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Do they show breast in eather of the versions?

"Lillie Norton"

Some random guys keep editing that this person called "Lillie NOrton" is in the film, as well as adding random songs abtou her too. I suspect sockpuppetry, as they're all from different users and the ISP all start with 70. 211.30.223.128 07:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Is there anyway to shorten the plot a little bit? Having a scene-by-scene summary seems a little bit...encyclopedic --Sylent 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh...maybe it's the pedia in the name or "The Free Encyclopedia" written under the logo, but some how I get the feeling that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.

The plot has gotten as bad as it used to be, please trim it. TheBlazikenMaster 12:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Time span

According to Monster Mania, Saw III takes place approximately 6 months after Saw II, with the exception of the flashbacks and the Eric/Amanda fight. According to Rigg, Eric is a missing person case at the scene of Troy's death, meaning he would have been missing for approx. 6 months. If he escaped, and it's been 6 months, and he's still missing, wouldn't that be a big hint that he's dead? Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do people get that 6 months have elapsed between Eric Matthews disappearing and Troy's chain game? jtalbot 21:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdtalbot (talk • contribs)

Because they mention that six months have passed in Troy's scene. Although bringing up this topic again is pretty moot given the events of Saw IV.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the captions for the Troy's scene and I see no mention of 6 months having passed... here's a bit of that scene:

I really had this feeling it was going to be him. Kerry, Eric is a missing persons case, not a homicide case. I've been having nightmares where I see him. I'm never going to be able to forgive myself for what happened. Listen. It's not your fault. It's always somebody's fault. That somebody isn't you. That someone is still out there.

(I'm asking because I'm constructing a visual timeline of all the saw's) --jtalbot (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Was it mentioned in Saw IV that Eric was missing for six months? I haven't seen it a while.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right: it's in saw 4. --jtalbot (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

release dates.

Do we REALLY need all these in the infobox?

Take a good look at:

• Bad Boys II
• The lord of the rings: The return of the king
• My Super Ex-Girlfriend
• Mission Impossible 3

And honestly tell me how many release dates are actually in the userboxes there. Of course these are VERY few, I currently have only five movies on my wathclist.

I could search all night just to find out there are few, if not none, movie articles that actually have so many release dates.

So I will ask you guys, do we need really need this? I'm not fixing it myself to prevent Revert wars. TheBlazikenMaster 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there aren't any objections I will do it. TheBlazikenMaster 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Director's Cut

Now seriously, this section needs a lot of sources. It's pure oringal research. Without source this section has to leave, if no source will be there by the time it's September the 15th, I will remove it, you can count on that. TheBlazikenMaster 10:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

-The first paragraph got the necessary citation.

The second one doesn't, but its not original research and I've read it all over the place, so if someone can find a good source then please help out, if one doesn't get found soon the just delete that paragraph, but don't delete the directors cut section, we know its coming out for sure, it has been announced and its available for pre-order on amazon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.39.154 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RPP

I'm not sure if it should be protected or not, that's why I'm asking.

Well, since Saw IV and the director's cut is recent, I have noticed that there are some unusual numbers of edits. And could get worse until the actual Halloween day has been reached. I noticed few vandalism edits, but I have no doubt it will be growing. A lot of people are crazy about the sequel of this movie, so I'm not surprised we are getting some vandalism here. As the director's cut is out at similar time. So is WP:RPP a good idea or not? TheBlazikenMaster 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Trivia section keeps on getting re-added.

And I think it uses different IP addresses. Because the one adding the trivia section today is not the same one I left a message on the talk page yesterday.

Can someone look into this issue? TheBlazikenMaster 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Even worse, today was even ANOTHER different IP address. Something has to be done. And sending warnings aren't working. I smell sockpuppetry, and believe it it doesn't smell good. TheBlazikenMaster 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Incorrect

In the article it reads, "This is made infinitely more difficult when Jigsaw reveals that he in fact engineered his son Dylan’s death in the first place, thus setting this whole series of events in motion." When John tells Jeff that he is "responsible for the loss of your child," it's in reference to the abduction of Jeff's daughter. The final paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect this. G0aT CheEZeY 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jill

In the plot summary, it describes Jill as John's old girlfriend. This needs to be changed, as she was his ex-wife. 99.131.15.76 05:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The first 2 traps

Why haven't the first 2 traps been mentioned? The first one with the guy that has to rip the chains out of his Hands, heels, thighs, shoulder blades and mouth. And the second one with the police woman with that machine that rips her ribs apart. These really should be mentioned in the plot. Halo legend 00 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

They're not mentioned in extreme detail (largely because the Saw articles have troubles with over-long plot summaries) but The hyperlink after Troy ("His Trap") and the one after Kerry ("Trap of her own") link to This article which goes into them in greater detail. Hope that explains it! Agent452 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)