Talk:List of Saw characters/Archive 1

Status
Whether or not the character is dead, alive or unknown should be stated for each and every single one of them. It should be stated just below the part which states the actor's name.

Here, I'll show you a sample of something it could look like:

Morgan
 * Morgan was portrayed by Janet Land.

Status: Alive

Morgan appears in Saw IV as the wife of a suspected physical abuser. Despite evidence, the police are unable to act upon her husband because both she and her daughter refuse to testify against him. Morgan is later put into a test with her husband involving numerous rods pierced through them, forced to free herself by killing him. She does so by removing all but one rod, but is found unconscious by Rigg, who then supplies her with a key to free herself before pulling a fire alarm and leaving. When found by Strahm and Perez and their crew, Morgan stated that Rigg saved her.

Lindsey Perez
 * Lindsey Perez was portrayed by Athena Karkanis.

Status: Deceased

Perez is from the FBI along with Peter Strahm. She along with Strahm, follow Rigg in his city-wide pursuit. At one of the crime scenes, Perez finds a tape recorder with a tape inside laying next to a Billy doll, as some sort of test for her. It tells her that her next step is crucial before the puppet's face explodes, sending shards into her face and neck. She is rushed to the hospital, but it is unknown if she survived. Had she figured that the two folders she and Strahm found previously (minus the two Jigsaw victims Strahm figured should be there) were referring to them she would have heeded the warning "you're in danger, take a step back" and avoided hospitalisation when confronted with the exploding Billy puppet.perez got stabbed and burned to death by detective hoffman from setting the office onfire on saw VI.

Rex
 * Rex was portrayed by Ron Lea.

Status: Deceased

Rex was the abusive husband of Morgan, who was also suspected of hitting his daughter. However, since neither Morgan nor her daughter testified against him, he was never sentenced. Rigg ended up punching Rex after talking to his daughter about her bruises, but escaped a lawsuit due to Art Blanc. Rex was later put into a test with his wife, in which he was doomed to die if Morgan tried to free herself. Rex bled to death as Morgan proceeded to try to escape.

It's what fans would be interested to quickly see as they scroll down, obviously. Yeldarb68 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So apparently there is an unintelligent elitist on here that thinks he runs this place, when really this place is wikipedia and isn't run by any specific individual, contrary to this warped individual's way of thinking.

You know who you are. Why delete what was placed, and then move this category all the way to the bottom, AND THEN provide absolutely no reponse to the topic? Do you have no response? Or do you have difficulties expressing yourself in the written form? It's okay if you are not very articulate. Give it a go. If you are so confident to act as if in charge of... a wikipedia thing .. surely you can gather the courage to explain yourself in trying to be the dictator of SAW on wikipedia, eh? Yeldarb68 11:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Catagorical
Shouldn't this be in catagories, like Recurring characters, Saw 1 characters, Saw 2 Characters, Saw III Characters... 211.30.215.168 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I suppose it makes it more organized. JackOfHearts 13:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Lynn Denlon, Adam Faulkner, Lawrence Gordon (Saw), Detective Eric Matthews, Jeff Reinhart
Please merge any relevant content from: per Articles for deletion/Lynn Denlon. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:13Z 
 * [ Lynn Denlon]
 * [ Adam Faulkner]
 * [ Lawrence Gordon (Saw)]
 * [ Detective Eric Matthews]
 * [ Jeff Reinhart]

Missing people
Should we include the dead cellmate from Amanda's trap? Apparently, he was portrayed by Oren Koules, but was never named... According to IMDb, there was also another detective, but who? Was Brett the detective from Amanda's interrogation? If so, shouldn't he be listed under "Detective" Brett like the other Detectives? Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No because Brett was Gordon's lawyer in the movie. The character even stated this himself. If there was another detective it's mostlikely the guy who sits Amanda down next to Tapp.

That black guy had a visitor's badge on. He put his arm wound Amanda like he knew her personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeldarb68 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More Pictures
I made pictures of almost all Saw-Characters, i don't know how to upload them on here, but someone else can do it if he/she has the ability (http://www.bilder-speicher.de/member_album.php?intID=5534)
 * I could, but I can't even get into your sight to view the pics. It requires a login and stuff. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing
Coudn't the list be categorized like:
 * Main character
 * Saw
 * Saw II
 * Saw III
 * Major character
 * Saw
 * Saw II
 * Saw III
 * Minor character
 * Saw
 * Saw II
 * Saw III

It's only a thought. --Rutherfordjigsaw 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Troy
It is interesting to note that Troy had a jigsaw piece cut out of him, which could either be a continuity error in the movie, or maybe the door wasn't welded shut until the end of the game. Maybe we will never know.

Watch it again. John says he cuts out a piece, the piece they are missing - survival. 67.142.130.14 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know he does it but what he's saying is Troy had a piece carved out of him when there was no way for anyone to get in. (Of course, since Amanda might have done it beforehand since she knew Troy had no chance of survival)--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OBISAW2.JPG
Image:OBISAW2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Detectivesing.jpg
Image:Detectivesing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TroySawIIILarose.JPG
Image:TroySawIIILarose.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Costas Mandylor
I see on here that there is a reference that his character Forensic Hoffman is "the one that will continue jigsaw's work" where is the citation for this statement? Was it in a trailer? publication?Jjkayes 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, watch the movie and you'll see. 67.142.130.14 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The movie never says that Hoffman will be the one to carry on John's work. Quite the opposite actually. SAW IV revealed that although Hoffman was in on it - he himself is still going to have to be tested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeldarb68 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As so did Amanda (being tested, 3 times actually [if you count Saw2]). I believe Hoffman was in on it for a while. John knew too much about people, and he needed someone's help to find these people and information (a cop). I believe it will be him that carries it on. Who else are their? We'll just see in 5. It's too early to be calling names. 72.171.0.146 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Returning Character's Saw 4 Updates
Most Characters that WERE presumed to appear in Saw 4, DID NOT or DID appear in the Film....most "Did Not" like Obi for example. Someone who has seen the movie several times or has a OFFICIAL FINAL CASTING of the Film please update the Character's page correctly correcting the assumptions that each character that were going to be in Saw 4 are deleted or etc. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GusSawII.jpg
Image:GusSawII.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jilljigsaw.PNG
Image:Jilljigsaw.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:XavierSawII.jpg
Image:XavierSawII.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tapp's fate
There's nothing to suggest he survived. Saying "Its unknown if he survived or not." is just speculation. Its not comparable to Gordon, whose fate was deliberately left up in the air.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Though his death is implied, it is never seen. Saw 4 was originally scripted to say that his sacrifices will never be forgotten, but it was taken out. Why? For the possibility that his character may return. The Saw series is known for huge plot twists, and showing that he somehow survived is not too far out of stretch.

Besides, do you think Jigsaw would see Tapp on the floor and do nothing? He doesn'tdo that. Chances are better than not he would use Tapp in a trap in the future. It is not above him as he uses ANYBODY, even people who have won the game, like Eric Matthews.


 * Erm...Eric LOST his game...and as below said it's speculation. Agent452 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying something like "it's possible his character might return" or whatever is speculation, and speculation is not encyclopedic, I'm afraid. ≈  The Haunted Angel  02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. As it is, I think we should only say "Their fate is unknown" with characters who are last seen in an ambigious state. (Gordon being the definitive example, of course.) In Tapp's case, he was shot and we saw him gasp and fall to the ground. Was his death definite in the same way as Eric Matthews where there's no room for doubt? No. But there's nothing to indicate he survived either.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bilbotx (or whatever your name is), I don't appreciate you removing my original post here. Editing discussions like this against the rules.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric had two games. The first he failed in staying to talk with Jigsaw. Eric won his last game in escaping the chain from the bathroom as Jigsaw himself stated in Saw 3. He was finished, yet he was used again as part of a trap in Saw 4.

If there is no confirmation that he is dead, then his current status is "unknown", regardless of what condition he was last seen in. Like I stated before, Jigsaw would most likely attempt to do something to save him to put him in a future trap.

I apologize for the removal or yourlast post. It is was completely unitentional and an error on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.162.178 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding then. But saying his fate is unknown is still speculation, especially since the creators have confirmed on the commentary that he's dead.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

While they may say he was confirmed dead, it is not beyond them to bring him back. In the canon story, his fate has never been determined. And the writers have thrown off fans of the series before, such as the lie that Donnie Walberg would not return for Saw 3. He did, and it's very possible Danny Glover could as well. A death needs to be confirmed in the canon story or it cannot be considered confirmed.

Why else do you think they would take out the tribute to Tapp and Sing in Saw 4? The only logical explanation is that they would at least want to consider bringing him back in the future. If his death was confirmed, there would be no reason to take out that scene in the script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.247.247 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're doing right now is speculation. He's dead. He hasn't come back in three sequels. The only one seeing the "logical explanation" is you. A number of stuff was cut out from the script from Saw IV. It could have very well been for time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What is speculation is to state that his death is confirmed. He is never shown dead. Notice I stress it is "implied" he died. Is it unreasonable to write that his death is techincally never shown, though it is implied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.247.247 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no speculation in saying his death is confirmed because everyone involved in the film have all said that he died! There's nothing concrete to suggest he survived. The only thing I would agree with is adding "presumably" but even that I think the other editors would disagree with, because in the end the doubt that he did die is original research and hasn't been speculated by anyone besides you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This hasn't had any replies in months, but I want to add my views. Basically, we see him fall back and act like your stereotypical dead shot guy in the movie. His death was never seen specifically, but so strongly implied that that plus the removed banner seems to indicate that he is dead. His fate may have unintentionally been left somewhat debatable, but it isn't the same as Lawrence Gordon, who's fate will, according to DLB, never be revealed. Also, I never recall hearing Tapp be called dead in the movie. But then there is the fact that if he were dead, his eyes would have been open. But then there is the fact that they messed up with Jigsaw, too. So I conclude that it is best that he be stated as something along the lines of "Most Likely Dead" or preferably "Presumably Dead." SkepticBanner (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is actually hilarious to read now. As we're all probably aware by this stage, Tapp was confirmed dead in both Saw V and the video game 'Saw II: Flesh and Blood'. 2birds1stone (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AddisonSaw2.jpg
Image:AddisonSaw2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GlennPlummer.jpg
Image:GlennPlummer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed woman
Why does she have her own entry? Her only purpose in the film is to show another Jigsaw trap -- she doesn't have any lines and her death had no practical purpose to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All of Jigsaw's victim's should be noteworthy. Mark and Paul hardly said anything either, and their only purpose was to show Jigsaw traps too. But they are still worth keeping. Yeldarb68 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark and Paul were used in the traps though. The female photographer died by accident and is as important as the random officers in Saw 2 that were involved in the staircase trap (and if I'm not mistaken, they were removed from the character list). --Tam001 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The guys on the staircase could have lived. That was left ambiguous. The Crime Scene Photographer definitely died. And whether or not that device was left there to kill a cop intentionally or whether it was accidental is questionable. If someone (an apprentice) intentionally wanted it to kill someone, that could hint at that said apprentice being flawed. And noone knew the names of the actors who played the several cops on the stairs in II, which wasn't very professional for the list, whereas we know the name of the actress who played this character in IV. And furthermore, she did more than die. She was the one who found the bullet casing wedged between Kerry's body and the Angel trap. That is a major plot point. I think your biggest issue with this character is that she hasn't got a name. IF she had a name would you be questioning her placement here at all? The unnamed man from part 1 has a place here, despite not having any name or lines. And I would argue that the unnamed woman is more significant to the plot than Brett ever was. Brett wasn't put in ANY trap situation at all. So delete her, and I will understand that the requirements to be on this list are strict, and that characters even less significant than her, such as Brett should also be removed for the sake of implementing the requirements of the rules evenly across all of the SAW movies.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Brit"
Julie Benz's character name is not "Brit". What sources have said is that her character will be "a Brit". That is, her character will be British. IMDb misinterpreted these sources. It was not stated that her character was named "Brit", but simply that her character is British.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ashley"
The only source so far about this character being in Saw V is IMDb. I do not think that is a reliable source. I suggest that she should be taken off the list of characters until a more reliable source confirms that she is in it. But I'll leave this up to discussion. What does anybody else think on this?

Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. IMDB is not reliable. SkepticBanner (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Character Categorization
I've noticed that recently the characters have been categorized into 'main', 'protagonist' and 'supporting' and 'minor'. PERSONALLY, I liked it better when it was categorized by which film each character made their first appearance, as I felt it was more encyclopedic, whereas the current framework is more subjective (eg, deciding which characters were 'minor' as opposed to 'supporting', etc). So I though I start a discussion about it.

Is the old way preferrable to the new framework? Either way, discuss.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A large majority of characters overlap into each film and as such, reading about a character in Saw II section can reveal info about Saw V, plus each was just an extensive list of characters including incredibly minor and unimportant ones. Theres nothing subjective about who the main characters are and who the protagonists of each film are, they're easily identifiable. Supporting characters get decent screen time but definitely are not the main focus and minor characters are people who don't really do anything but exist and act as either a victim, a brief background character or an incentive for a victim and whose lines are generally "ahhhhhhhhhhhh, omg, why are you doing this to m...". I used to do it the other way for another article that features a large list of characters with one TWO that overlapped into different sections for reappearance and it was largely voted down in favour of a model like this. The headers are open for re-naming, they're just the best I could think of at the time and the most representative of the role. Jig, Amanda and Hoffman I considered main because they are each playing the role of the Jigsaw killer, the driving focus of the films while hte protagonists are generally only the protagonist for one film and are the focus of the main trap/game with the goal being to defeat it at the culmination of the film. Personally I like it much better, the important sections are shorter, neater and more organised and the unimportant ones are down at the bottom where they belong.

EDIT: Ideally I'd like to make a section for really minor characters like unnamed man, unnamed woman, people who literally appear on screen just to die, but I couldn't think of a name for such a section.

EDIT2: You could easily, if you wanted to, add a line beneath "This character was portrayed by" that states:
 * Played by
 * Appeared in Saw, Saw II, Saw IV, etcDarkwarriorblake (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I still like the old way better. It was easier to navigate through. And it was less subjective to do it by first appearance than by OR categories of 'protagonist', 'supporting', 'minor'. But I'm not in charge here. Yeldarb68 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then come up with better titles. Its not personal property.  The old way didn't work because a great deal of characters appear in multiple films and so categorising them by film requires you to repeat the character in each section for accuracy, which doesn't work.  It also means that if someone decides just to read about Saw 1 characters they can end up having Saw V spoiled for them by reading the bio of someone who appears in both.  Most of the minor characters can be trimmed, do we really need info on the random guy who was lying on the floor to be stabbed by Amanda or Unamed Woman?  No.


 * The titles maybe could be better but they were the best I could think of but they aren't exactly subjective. Protagonists are the lead 'hero' of the movie, the one we follow throughout, the one who has a character arc to complete from start to finish and is the focus of Jigsaws current game.  Supporting characters are involved in the story a lot and interact with the protagonist but are not the starring character and are not the focus character of the story arc.  Antagonists are the driving force behind the game in the film pushing the protagonists arc.  Minor characters are there, sometimes interact with main characters, sometimes don't, but their presence is largely inconsequential and are often killed off pretty early and with disregard.


 * EDIT: And again, I couldn't come up with better headers but another section could be easily added to break up minor characters into minor and people who are literally on screen just to die or say something. I mean we also have a character listing for the reporter who had 2 lines in a press conference.  Something is wrong here.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The assumption being made is that the 'protagonists' are the good guys and that the 'antagonists' are the bad guys. But really, the word protagonist simply means main character. The protagonist is not always good and the antagonist is not always bad. So arguably, some may interpret Amanda as being the protagonist of SAW III, despite her wickedness. A classic example of evil protagonists is Shakespeare's Macbeth in which Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are the protagonists despite their villainous behavior. Arguably Jigsaw and Amanda were the protagonists of SAW III. But again, that is also subjective. Some may argue that Amanda was the protagonist and Jigsaw was the antagonist in SAW III. Or vice versa, as they were on opposing sides. And with Saw V, Hoffman was arguably the protagonist. I have heard some argue that Detective Kerry was the false protagonist of SAW III, which they argue is a form of 'protagonist'. Meanwhile, a user complained to me that Xavier should be considered an antagonist. As well as Obi, Zep and Art, as they antagonized other characters. I disagreed with them, and said that Obi was a minor character, they retorted that a minor character is capable of being an antagonist. That's actually worth consideration. But I claimed that they were more like red herring than minor characters who happened to be antagonists. But I acknowledge that our disagreement was another subjective issue. And when viewing the franchise as a single entity, Jigsaw is definitely considerably a 'protagonist' and not an 'antagonist', as so much screen time was dedicated to making the audience sympathize with him. Then again, instead he might be considered a tragic villain. Furthermore, is the subjective difference between 'supporting' and 'minor'. Some have already been complaining about who is in which category. For example, some have complained that Sing isn't supporting while Erickson should be. I personally believe the opposite. While all these different claims of protagonist, antagonist, false protagonist, evil protagonist, tragic villain, villain, red herring, minor, supporting and so forth may carry some intellectual consideration, the bottom line is it is debatable, and what's more, it is original research. I would find splitting the minor character section into two to be just as problematic.


 * Now, as for the old structure. It did not categorize the characters by the total number of films they appeared in, or which film was their most notable. Amanda's role was largest in SAW III, yet she was categorized under SAW I. This is because the old way wasn't about that. It was objectively about what was each character's FIRST appearance. This was outlined in the opening paragraph above the contents, so users would not assume and should not have assumed that the Saw I section only talked about things that happened in Saw I, but rather that it categorized all the characters that had their first appearance in Saw I. Etc. If anything risks spoilers, it is the current structure which lists Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman in the same boat of 'antagonists', indicating they are on the same side. This is serious spoiler potential, which is not to be expected in a contents section.


 * re: unnamed man and woman: Now that the list of traps has been deleted, I think it is necessary to retain their brief character sections on this list to note their deaths. If the list of traps page were still existent, their character deletion from this article would be more considerable. But since the list of traps was deleted, I would argue that these type of characters can and even should stay.


 * Yeldarb68 (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll comment more on this when I get back from work but did you ignore the part where I said come up with better headers then? But its not arguable that Jigsaw or his cohorts are protagonists.  They create antagonising situations that drive the film and the protagonists move with/against that.  Sing had about as much a role as Kerry in the films and worked alongside Tapp where as Erickson didn't really do anything but be suspicious.  Labelling characters by first appearance doesn't make sense because you end up with sections filled with many minor, unimportant characters for a start and it ignores that 70% of the characters span multiple films and influence stuff in prior films by their actions in later films.  Dividing them by section without repeating their entry in each film section makes it appear that their actions are limited to that film but repeating their info in each section is not an option at all.


 * When we have guidelines, people can argue that Sing can be wherever and it gets debated and sorted. And there is no excuse for the existence of Unnamed man, Unnamed woman and Pamela Jenkins for a start.  Unless they appear in another film or do anything other than die or say a sentence on screen, they shouldn't be here.  One of them is POlice Chief lOgan or something and his information isn't anything to do with him because there is that little info available.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While your points may be considerable and even logical, they are still original research. The point isn't that you are wrong. The point is that it is original research, which violates wikipedia's policy guidelines. Someone like Amanda may be considered the protagonist of SAW III. In fact I believe Leigh Whannell has said that SAW III "is Amanda's story". And your definition of the antagonist creating obstacles for others? The fact is that the protagonist creates obstacles for the antagonist as well usually. Such Macbeth creating obstacles for MacDuff in Macbeth, yet Macbeth still being the protagonist. Being villainous and creating obstacles for other characters does not mean that a character cannot be a 'protagonist'.


 * And people shouldn't have an excuse to misunderstand that the old way categorized by first appearance only, and didn't imply that those characters were restricted to their first appearance. It specified this in the opening paragraph above the contents.


 * I am not thinking up any alternative heading names for this kind of structure. Because anything I think up would also be original research, unless I can back it up with a citation. I am pushing for a return to the old structure.


 * The status of Sing, Erickson, etc. Once again I'm not saying your point of view is wrong. What I'm saying is that your point of view is just that, a point of view. Subjective. I don't think that is encyclopedic.


 * The status of the unnamed man, etc. Some argue that all Jigsaw's victims should be included. Unnamed man for instance has appeared in 3 out of the 5 films. Pamela needs to be deleted though. She hasn't been a victim, a hero, or anything.


 * Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Heading names need not be original research. All possible headers in existence need not label characters as they are.  People can argue Amanda was a protagonist but its very clear from later films and flashbacks to her past with Jigsaw that beyond her first appearance in a trap, which would label her just a minor character, she has been an active, if conflicted villain and a prominent character.  Label it the Jigsaw family or something or Jigsaw Killer and apprentices.  I dunno.  Its very clear to me that Hoffman, Amanda and Jigsaw fall into a particular category, their are LEAD characters if not protagonists who hold a substantial role to their particular film, Lawrence and Adam for instance probably have the most screen time of anyone in that film.  There are people who are obviously not the lead character but get significant screentime interacting with the obvious lead and there are those who exist for minutes on film, are relations of important/notable characters and do nothing but be there.


 * I think all the people in the 'protagonist' section had their own articles originally. It was all just plot reiteration but they had enough info, fluff but info, to warrant that section which again would indicate their importance.  Anyway, any header that can be thought up is not simply OR and should be ignored, there are very clear and distinct tiers for the characters and listing them simply by first appearance is not an effective or efficient way of doing this article.  Especially one with this many listings.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that it is not effective or efficient is simply one point of view. Evidently my point of view is that it would be efficient and effective. And the labels one gives fictional characters can indeed be original research. Everything you have argued above is original research, even if logical. It is still YOUR ANALYSIS. And what concerns me about that is that the little bit more of an aura of original research to the entire structuring of the article will be used as an excuse for overly-eager users who would wish to delete any article related to SAW. So where do we go from here? We clearly are not going to agree. So what should be done next? Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, for the mean time, I've divided the minor characters section into two: victims and other. But I still think the old structure by first appearance is preferrable. Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Get ghostface or someone to give their 2 cents.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters
What i dont understand is why are people putting in interviews and what the actor says or what  the producers say. I thought that it was about the actual character of the movie and how they pertain to the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.218.159 (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is real world info about the character and their motivations that may not be very visible in the movie. Its just a little extra info though it can perhaps be worded better or streamlined.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoffman
So, do you think Hoffman deserves his own article yet? Saw V was pretty much entirely devoted to him, so he certainly has enough background info now. 69.207.115.250 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually do agree. On the WikiProject, I have posted a notice here.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who merged the Daniel and Adam sections
They make no sense now, it's talking about how Adam kicked the bathtub stopper then immediately starts talking about what Daniel did. It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overtwitch2 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Erickson should be listed as a "Supporting Character"
I think that Erickson should be moved from "minor characters" to "supporting characters." While he wasn't a featured main character, he was deffinitly a major supporting character in "Saw V," and was very important to the plot. If smaller characters like Steven Sing are in the list of "supporting characters", than I think Erickson should deffinitly be there. Anyone agree? MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ALPHABETICAL ORDER
The opening paragraph of this article states:

"The following is a list of characters who have appeared throughout the Saw series, either as main characters, victims of games, detectives, or others. This list places the characters in alphabetical order based on surname, or first name if the former is not confirmed in any Saw media, and then into categories based upon the role they play in the series."

- This implies that if a characters family name is known, that they will be listed alphabetically by that family name. And only by first name if the family name is unknown. So why is the article not following its opening paragraph? And I think it SHOULD. The characters should be listed alphabetically by family name.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Who comes here looking for Gordon, Lawrence? Just change the opening paragraph.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, but just as arguable is who comes here looking for Mark Hoffman. Emphasis on family name and first name varies. Fans will be more comfortable with Hoffman's and Kerry's and Rigg's, etc characters having their family name emphasized, while fans would be more comfortable with those like Adam, Lynn and Addison having emphasis on their first name. It cuts both ways. But it is completely beside the point. Wikipedia isn't about what fans are comfortable with. It is not a fan site. I argue that it should be alphabetically listed by family name because first and foremost it is more encyclopedic.


 * Yeldarb68 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest listing them by their most applicable name with their full name at the start of their bio. Rigg for instance has been Rigg up until a photo in V.  Whereas Lawrence Gordon would stay Lawrence Gordon.  Hoffman would be Hoffman, Mark Hoffman at the start of his bio.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at something like list of final fantasy characters, I think those got GA and they aren't done by last name.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Inconsistency would be worse. Either list them alphabetically by first name or by family name. To mix things up for the convenience of fans would be chaotic and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia articles do not exist to please fans or opponents of the subject of an article. The articles should be objective, plain, simple, straight-forward and scientific in approach. I believe that placing them alphabetically by family name is the more scientific and encyclopedic standard. This is how the old structure was and it worked fine. This article should be about what is most encyclopedic first and foremost than about what is convenient for fans of the subject. And it is not wikipedia policy for what is existent in other articles to be used as evidence of what should be in another article. Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They're examples of what achieves GA status though. They're a decent template.  And I've never seen this article listed by last name first.  Ever.  Never Gordon, Lawrence.  So just keep it as first name.  Its not meant to be scientific, its a fictional movie series character list, alphabetic by first name is perfectly encyclopedic and the most useful.

________
 * No, while I believe that they should be listed alphabetically by family name, I never said that they should be placed family name first as in "Gordon, Lawrence".


 * This is what I mean:


 * Antagonists
 * Mark Hoffman
 * John Kramer
 * Amanda Young


 * Notice that first name is still first, but it is alphabetized by family name. This is the old way that this page was alphabetized. Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Other characters"
Is that section necessary at all? Do "David" and "Billy" really needed to be mentioned on this list? I think not. What does everyone else think? Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "citation needed" next to names
At one point in Saw V, Agent Strahm holds a list of all Jigsaw's victims, which is where all the surnames have come from. I think the film itself qualifies as a source, so I've removed all the 'citation needed'.
 *  ViperBlade   Talk!! 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please make a citaion of that then in all the characters names. 142.177.172.97 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam's last name
I think "Faulkner" should be listed along with "Stanheight" with Adam's character, since that was his official last name (from the Saw Website and scripts) until its appearance on the list in Saw V. It's another mistake, like how the shackle was on Adam's left ankle at one point, but then on his right at another. Mistakes happen. If people don't want to list "Faulkner" beside Adam's name, they should at least explain that it was that at one stage. Also, I'd be very grateful if people stopped trying to change the stopper paragraph below that; even though Amanda wrapping the stopper around Adam's ankle made it more likely that the key went down the drain, it probably still would have ended up down there, when Adam used the stopper to reach the tape recorder in the middle of the room. It's a known fact, so please. Stop. Deleting. It. Thank you. —unsigned 3:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that a. It's complete conjecture b. It can be refuted with this conjecture: He would have seen the key. 66.65.74.35 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I really doubt that he would have seen it. Jigsaw would not have made it that easy. He would have considered the key a small "chance" that Adam had. He purposely made the tape recorder out of reach so that Adam would have to use something to get it. Adam, being the rash person that he is, probably would have fumbled blindly without bothering to lean over the see what was actually in the water, like he is shown to do in the movie, causing the key to get sucked down the hole, and by the time he did see it, it would have been too late. They tried to add revelation to the third movie by making it seem like Amanda had caused Adam to lose, but the fact remains: Jigsaw never would have made it so easy in a game that he had spent so long putting together. If Adam had found his key, Lawrence would never have "learned" anything, nor would he have, for that matter. Amanda being the one to kill Adam in the third movie was enough of a revelation, as well as her being the one to kidnap him. They didn't need to include a huge plothole like that. There were enough of them already. —unsigned 4:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Paul Leahy"
Saw IV and Saw V page indicate "Stallberg" and not "Leahy" What's the real name ? Nico92400 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Pro vs. An.
Okay, now, I'm not 100% sure, but they way I always learned it was that the "antagonist" wasn't always the 'bad guy', nor was the "protagonist" always the 'good guy'. I've always learned it as "protagonist" is the main character, and "antagonist" is their opposing force(s). And if that's the case, I believe we should take Amanda, John, and Hoffman out of the "antagonists" section as they're more the main characters or "protagonists". Just a suggestions --HELLØ    ŦHERE 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The classic example of villainous protagonists is Shakespeare's Macbeth. But so far I cannot accept Jigsaw, Amanda or Hoffman have ever been protagonists (that is the story being told completely from their point of view). What made Macbeth and Lady Macbeth 'protagonists' was that the story was being told from their perspective. With Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman, we very rarely follow things from their point of view, with the exception of brief flashbacks. While they appear the most frequently over the entire movies as a whole, that does not necessarily mean they are the protagonists. Each individual film for the most part portrays the flow of events from the point of view of someone else other than them. Jigsaw's, Amanda's and Hoffman's views for the most part are left ambiguous and mysterious until some kind of revelation through a twist ending, but throughout most of each film the audience is left ignorant of what they have planned, thus proving that the films' plot is not told from the villains' perspective. The protagonists are usually shocked by this twist (as are the audience - thus showing the audience is intended to be following the story from that said point of view of the main victim of each film). The audience 'discovers' things at the same time as these main victims. Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman are antagonists in the sense that they create obstacles for these characters. And we as the audience 'see' these villains from the perspective of them. We learn more about Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman as the protagonists of each film learn more about one or more them. For example, we learn more about Hoffman in V, only because we are watching the protagonist Strahm learn more about him. Etc, etc. Things of course get more complicated in the circumstance of III, where Jigsaw and Amanda clashed with each other, but that is actually normal in plots involving multiple antagonists that they often clash both with the protagonists as well as each other. But the point is, that Jigsaw, Amanda and Hoffman are antagonists not because they are "bad", but because the plot of each film isn't from their view. Dr. Gordon, Eric Matthews, Lynn, Rigg and Strahm are the protagonists because we, the audience, followed them along as they uncovered and discovered plot elements. Thus, the current status of protagonist/antagonist here. Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obi
Why do people keep calling Obi "Obadiah "Obi" Gee". When in Straham goes into the file room if you look at the names on the outsied of the victems files. One of them clear as days says Obi Tate. not trying to be a jerk but i havnt seen any proof that his name is Obadiah "Obi" Gee. If u can prove me wrong his nam isnt obi tate i would love to see it. because if the movies clearly states thats his name looks like im right. watch the movies people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonesoldjah (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be rude about it. It's been here as Obi Gee for a while, I'm pretty sure it says that in the credits of one of the movies, I'm not sure on that though.  And that file isn't necessarily correct as it references an "Adam Stanheight", which many believe to be the same as "Adam Faulkner", but it is not confirmed.  Do you have a screenshot of the scene you're referring to?  It would help.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In Saw II, Saw III and Saw V state his name is just Obi with no last name. Says in credits on all 3 dvds and imdb.com that its just Obi. None of them state Obadiah "Obi" Gee. No i do not have a screen shot. If you are saw fanatic like me you would already own Saw V. all you gotta do is pop it in and go to the scene where strahm goes into the file room and look. Pause it or put it in slow motion and you will see Obi Tate presumed victem of Jigsaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.209.38 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something. In the characters of the Saw Movies that have their own individual Wikipedia article, such as Eric Matthews, if they have any kind of "relationship" to Obi, his last name is listed as Gee, and from the edit history I have looked through in those articles, that last name was not recently put there. It's been there for quite some time now.142.177.170.70 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Once agian Obadiah "Obi" Gee was made up by someone there is no proof in any of the saw movies thats his first name or last name. But in saw v they do show his name as OBI Tate. but you idiots keep saying gee with no proof at all all youy rteards keeps saying well its been gee see keep it that way. funny how the movie states his name as obi tate and none of you keep his name as tate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonesoldjah (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed man
I think he has a name. This article mentions Strahm looking at a list of victims of Saw traps. I noticed that on that list, the name right after Amanda Young is "Donnie Greco". Do you think that might be the man from the Reverse Beartrap, with the key hidden in his stomach? 24.65.118.20 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Strahm
Is there any need for Strahm to have his own article? It seems to be entirely plot reiteration that oculd quite easily exist here.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Rienhart's Daughter
What actually happens to Jeff's daughter? Does she die because he didn't complete the game? AdamLakeATCL (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)AdamLakeATCLAdamLakeATCL (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saw_characters#Corbett_Reinhart Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Too long for a list.
From top to bottom, I scrolled quite a bit. Just my opinion, I think this list is way too long in length compared to some of the lists I seen on here. I am merely suggesting these lists to be separated, and not consolidated into one big list. Its too complex to read in one go, unless there are redirects to the list to which it automatically scrolls to the appropriate information requested. Thanks for reading, even if you don't agree with me.JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to scroll all the way down. Use the contents tab, you'll be fine. 124.176.63.153 (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw VI characters
We should add more characters from Saw 6 on here. I think the ones in the carousel room are Dave, Josh, Gena, Shelby, Aaron, and Emily. 24.65.126.227 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So far these characters haven't been listed:

Gerry Mendicino as Janitor (the man that got crushed because he couldn't hold his breath. He was in William's first test.) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Devon Bostick as Brent ✅
 * Shauna MacDonald Tara ✅
 * Shawn Ahmed as Allen (the guy that got hanged) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Janelle Hutchison as Addy (the older woman that William saved) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * George Newbern as Harold (Tara's husband and Brent's father.) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Darius McCrary as Dave (the carousel trap) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * James Gilbert as Aaron (the carousel trap) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Shawn Mathieson as Josh (the carousel trap) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Melanie Scrofano as Gena (the carousel trap) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Karen Cliche as Shelby (the carousel trap) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Larissa Gomes as Emily (the carousel trap) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.
 * Caroline Cave as Debbie (the woman in the steam room) ✅ but may require copy-editing and more details.

--MikeAllen (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Appeared in"
Is it really necessary to say that Peter Strahm "appeared" in Saw VI? If so, then it would also be necessary to say that Dr. Gordon appeared in Saw III (as a flashback, when Amanda and John are setting up the bathroom trap) as he is seen unconscious face down on the floor. Although, of course Cary did not play him. Also, I don't remember Jeff "appearing" in Saw VI, not even in a flashback? -MikeAllen (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

People shouldn't be listed for appearing for 3 seconds in a film UNLESS they actually are influential in something in the current film, so flashbacks shouldn't count unless they appear in the flesh and alive.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Characters should be rearranged by 'first appeared in'
It is becoming a bit too cluttered as there are increasingly too many characters under subheadings 'minor characters' and increasingly even 'supporting characters'. And it will get even worse with a supposed SAW VII and SAW VIII being confirmed. It would be neater and more concise to have the characters divided under the subheading of which film they first appeared in. Such a change would: be easier and neater to reference and navigate, it would be a format that would allow continuous ease with the event of more sequels, and it would be objective (because the current labels of 'supporting', 'minor', etc are arguably original research and therefore inappropriate). 124.176.63.153 (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. --MikeAllen (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This was how it was and you end up with a situation where people have appeared in several films and yet their entry for the first film they appeared in contains information for further films in the series and it looks silly when they appear in multiple films while being listed under 'Saw I' and ' Saw II'. The more sensible solution is not to list every person who appears in the films.  The people at the start of Saw 6 for instance are not worth mentioning unless something somehow comes back to them in a later film, which is unlikely.  Art gets mentioned because he appears in the start and end of a film, etc.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall that you thought it looked silly. I recall that you pretty much as an individaul drove the cahnge to the format that exists today. A lot of us users stepped back and decided to give your idea a go. And in retrospect now, with the increasing number of sequels, we can see that this format is problematic. As some sections just are increasingly becoming jam-packed with too many characters - in turn making navigation very difficult. And the reactionary movement to 'fix' the problem to delete and remove content just does not seem adequate. Are we going to be deleting more and redefining the subjective concept of 'significant character' yet again when three more SAW sequels are made? As for categorisation by 'first appeared in', that only may look silly from a fan perspective, from an in-universe point of view. I need to be abrupt, the needs of fandom do not outweigh the more immediate need of being encyclopedic, objective and avoiding original research. And I must also add that stating that, for example that the character of Amanda first appeared in the first film, does not at all imply that she did not appear in the latter films as well. It simply implies what would be stated, that she first appeared in the first film. What more can I say? It is objective and it avoids original research, and it also divides the characters neatly and evenly making it easy to navigate. These are what the priorities should be, wouldn't one agree? I mean, what is more appropriate for an encyclopedia to do: arrange the characters by supposed 'importance' or to arrange by the notion of medium by which the fictional character was created? One is subjective, while the other is objective. One utilises original research, while the other avoids it. One would neatly divide the characters no matter how many SAW movies are made, while the other does not. What should be chosen? Wouldn't you say: objective, avoidant of original research, and neatly organised and navigatable no matter how many more films/characters will be created in the future? 124.176.63.153 (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Listing every character like Crime Scene Photographer is NOT encyclopedic its stupid. If you don't have enough information in or out of universe to make a valid entry for a character then its pointless at best.  Surely the BEST option is to remove all headers and list everyone alphabetically, nothing like a long alphabetical list.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sensing some hostility. I don't think that is useful to the dicussion at hand. As fornot having 'enough information' If anything, the amount of information on every single character on this page should be limited to 6-8 lines or so. There should not be a full biography for any character at all - as that is rehashing plot. As a list, this page should simply state the character and briefly describe what role they played in each film they appeared in, and that's all. You state that information on characters like Jonas can be accessed in the plot section of the film pages. Well arguably, the same could be said of characters like Lawrence Gordon. His whole description on this page is pretty much doubling up on information on the film page for the first film. So why keep Lawrence Gordon or ANY character based on your argument of doubling up of info? Every character's info is doubling up on info on the film pages. And why do you want to delete Jonas but want to keep Addison? How ambiguous is that. Why is Addison important but not Jonas? Because she appeared for several more minutes than him in II? Your measurements are so flimsy, debatable, subjective and based on original research.


 * As for having a list only based on a basic arrangement of each character by alphabetical order? I think that would be a bit more difficult to navigate, but I actually think that is a more viable option than the current set up. Honestly, arranging by 'importance' is too subjective. Plain arranging by alphabetical order would be better actually. But arranging by 'first appeared in' would be the best in my opinion because the data wouldn't be in huge chunks, but rather objectively and evenly divided for navigation ease. 123.3.182.78 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion on layout
Would this page benefit to be laid out like this? I personally think it would help the page. Opinions? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, it would also make it easier to list groups of characters, such as the abusive couple or the six insurance investigators from VI all in one entry and condensing the article some. Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the idea I am working on. What does anyone think? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea and well looking Nico92400 (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Entry Deletions
So I'm going to suggest the following characters are deleted as either irrelevant, pointless or just not worth mentioning unless further information comes forward. Not all victims should be listed simply because they are present in the movie, its just taking up space. I mean #Crime scene photgrapher'? In some cases a brief mention in omeone elses bio would suffice, such as Jeff Reinharts son. In other cases their information is just plot that is stated elsewhere. I think any characters who appear in the games should be in a separate section unless they appear in one of the films.

In some cases there are people who appear not prominently but frequently in a film like those in Saw V but again their bio can be covered in their related movie article and probably already is.


 * Jane
 * Heffner
 * Harold
 * Fisk
 * Dylan Reinhart
 * Deborah
 * Chris
 * Carla
 * Angelina Hoffman
 * Crime Scene Photographer
 * Donnie Greco
 * Troy
 * Simone and Eddie
 * Rex
 * Morgan
 * Michael Marks
 * Jeff Ridenhour-Thomas
 * Ivan Landis
 * Hank
 * Halden
 * Gus Colyard
 * Debbie
 * Danica Scott
 * Charles
 * Carousel Room Victims
 * Brenda
 * Ashley
 * Addy and Allen
 * Mellisa Sing
 * Luba
 * Mallick
 * Jonas Singer
 * Laura Hunter
 * Diana Gordon
 * Brent and Tara
 * Alison Gordon

I'm obviously up for discussion on these but I believe that most of them would not be a huge loss to this article or remove any information that couldn't be found anywhere else.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm (and anyone who wants to help) am working on a new redesign -- you can see it here. So you suggest only MAIN characters should be listed? It's obviously just a rough draft, but I don't want to get too far in it, if some characters don't even need to be listed.  Thanks. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically the entire purpose of the 'Minor Characters' heading is for such entries as this. Many of the characters you are suggesting deleting played rather important, even if brief, roles in their respective films. Alison Gordon irrelevant? She was a major element of the entirety of the original film's storyline; to equate her with 'Crime Scene Photographer' is a bit silly. Citing 'finding it anywhere else' seems kind of a weird statement to make on an encyclopedia. A few of the other edits already made without discussion here appear rushed and more detrimental than their original forms. WP:NOTPAPER should be taken into consideration here. I'm not against some edits, but this list is a bit overboard.24.107.209.115 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your design but I would add a column for movies appeared in. David.snipes (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * David, I'm trying to sway away from that, as it's not working out too well right now, apparently.  Someone suggested to list all the chracters under the movie they appeared in.  Like I currently have on that page.


 * Saw (the first movie)


 * All the characters


 * Saw II


 * All the characters.


 * I am only adding what their role was in that particular movie. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * @ 24.107.209.115 - Anything about Gordons wife or daughter is pure plot, they're captives, then they're not, its covered in the Saw I article and its easily covered in Lawrences entry by saying they were part of his test, thats it, they've not appeared or been mentioned since so there is nothing of value gained from having their entry. Most of the entries up there are for cannon fodder who do little and appear in a portion of one film.  Anything relating to them is likely covered in the plot summary of their associated film.  Theres nothing rushed about the entries made here and judging from the two TOO-LONG banners over Hoffman and Strahm, a trimming was due.  The entries are FILLED with irrelevant info or info that can be found in movie entries or main articles.  Jigsaw, Hoffman, Amanda and Jill all have their own articles, fluff though Hoffmans may be and yet their entries here were excessive to put it lightly.  The edits made today cover the important actions taken by the characters and nothing more, no fluff, no quotes or things OTHER PEOPLE did.  This was done for neatness and the sake of streamlining the article which has become massively bloated over the past few months.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorting a list like this by each individual film will only contribute to the bloat, especially for the major characters who have more and more backstory revealed with each film. A character page, even a list one, should be a synopsis of the CHARACTER, the individual details for each film are better left on the films' pages. For characters like Alison Gordon, the entry could made as 'Lawrence, Alison & Diana Gordon', which would still describe the doctor's basic points and include that his wife and child were hostages.Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With all that said and taken into consideration -- do you think the table looks better? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think that deleting or merging characters is a mistake. The purpose of this article is simply to list the characters of the franchise. Citing the minor characters does not detract from the purpose of that. I reiterate this article is nothing more than a list. As such it should be a complete list. That character history overlaps with plot is no surprise and is not a bad thing. But since this is just a list article - the descriptions of EVERY character should be minimised. All the characters should be listed and all the characters should have their description trimmed down to just a few lines. But I repeat, merging and deleting characters for a list article is ridiculous. And I have to add that by deleting characters one is establishing which characters are supposedly noteworthy and which are not. That is original research, goes against wikipedia's premise, and I doubt many wikipedia users would tolerate that. Lastly, by merging and having merged characters, it makes the article much more difficult to navigate for someone who accessed this article with the intention of looking for a specific character in particular. The suggested amendments are not constructive - they are impractical (would make it more difficult to navigate), detract from the point of the article (a list article should be a complete list) and breaks the rules of wikipedia by relying on original research (by deciding which characters are noteworthy and which are not is original research. The suggested amendments cannot be implemented on those bases. 123.3.160.184 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would've said people whose name is only seen in the credits would count as not noteworthy. Are you saying that Crime Scene Photographer should stay?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the trimmings Ive done so far bring this article more in line with something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_the_Final_Fantasy_VII_series) which was a featured topic article. Now we COULD rename stuff like protagonists and antagonists to Central characters and Major characters, I dont know how thats decided or if it would make much of a difference but the way they're grouped right now works, I just think too much fluff is mentioned.  We're not talking about making sure we don't miss anyone, we're talking about listing and giving bios to people who do nothing short of exist on screen for more than a split-second, whose entire bio is easily taken from the movie summary.


 * By wikipedia policy, you actually cannot point to another article as supposed 'proof' of how another article should be. By this policy, you cannot set it as a standard as a 'must' template at all. You're attempt to do so here may prove fruitless here. The fact is, that this as a list article does actually serve the main purpose of simply listing those that fit the topic. It's as simple as that. That is why uncited information is permissable here. Because it is a list article, and as said, and I will repeat, the purpose is to simply list. Should it be a 'complete' list? Well, encyclopedically, yes it should. 'Too much detail'? Since when does that exist on an encyclopedia? I must remind everyone this is not a fan site to portray character biographies at all. As a list page, it is simply like a reference page. The fact that this character reference page is not properly organised at the moment and difficult to navigate does not mean valid content of the category of the list should be removed. What is needed is better organisation of the DATA. And yes, that's all it is and should be looked at as - data. And I also should remind everyone that this page also contain content from a previous list that was previously deleted: List of Saw Traps. The content from the List of Saw Traps was deleted with that then being merged into this List of Characters page. That is why minor characters are included - not so much to give plot repetitions BUT MORESO to detail the traps as well. I do believe that people would come to this page wanting to query 'who was in what trap' as it is a major iconic basis of this franchise. That is why, yes Danica is noteworthy, and so forth, and so forth. Unless you suggest, that the traps be detailed in the plot summaries of each film article? I hope not. Because I don't think that would work at all. Besides which, as a list of characters page, it should also serve the purpose of providing a rundown of actors/actresses who portrayed them. The seemingly set up of a somewhat 'committee' here enforcing and driving this kind of change is fine when such a group can PROVE that the change is needed under the rules of wikipedia. I can guarantee that many users will disagree with the idea of deleting characters like Michael (arguably one of the most iconic traps in the SAW franchise) and etc. And it is not simply that people will disagree. There are always disagreements when change is enforced. But when you will not be able to PROVE to the dissenters WHY the changes are definitely required under wikipedia policy, that will problematic. Please keep this all in mind. I doubt you will for some reason. I get the impression that you are gun-ho on the ideal way you personally think it 'should' be and are not truly considering this from an encyclopedic reference list page point of view. I continue to disagree with what is proposed for the direction of this article. It will create the problems outlined above, and simply try to sugar coat the real problem at hand, which is, that the characters are not properly or efficiently organised for effective navigation. Deleting characters because we are getting to the point that the franchise has become successful with a large number of sequels just does not seem like the professional approach. It seems reactive and reactionary. What is needed is for us editiors to be proactive - which for example, I can forsee for example that if this franchise extends to a SAW IX as is currently being anticipated by Lionsgate Studios, then we will just the problems all over again in the near future of 'too many characters' when really the real problem is poor organisation of the characters. I still insist that the best way this should be laid out is how it used to be before - that is, have the characters laid out by 'first appeared in'. The character, major and minor should be included as this is a reference page - a list. As a previous list article was deleted with the assumption that material would be retained in this article (the traps) that should also be kept in mind. And besides which, deciding which characters are major or minor to begin with is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, violating the concept of wikipedia and opening up the possibility for other editors of wikipedia to later stumble upon such a blatant faux pas for them to legitimately criticise it. Characters should be reorganised, not deleted. This page should be reverted to the format it used to be run by. The neatness of this article being dependent on the number of films existent is not a well organised way to do it. This article only began to look messy when the characters were rearranged into subjective terms of 'antagonist', 'minor', 'supporting', etc. I believe a revert to the old format is the solution. 124.176.63.153 (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to see what people think of this format. So far people have supported it (the one who has answered it). So when it's done, I guess I'll change it over.  -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * @124.176.63.153 - Is using spaces or breaking things up into paragraphs part of wikipedia policy? That was the hardest thing Ive ever had to read.  Having important characters half way down the page (and yes, someone who is playing a lead character like the guy current running the games would be classed as important) because they only appeared in the third or fourth film is not the best way to do it.  If you don't like it so much think up better titles, those were the best I could think of at the time.


 * ~ Micwa, I dont like your design, I dont see what it does thats not already being done, just without a grey box around it. But Im not a consensus Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my aim was to address concerns of it "being too long and hard to navigate". Here you can easily find each character based on the movie they were in.  That page is just a mock-up (so that grey box may not be permanent).   I wanted to include in the table "Main characters" and "Minor characters" -- but can't figure out the right code to accomplish that.  I wanted to get feedback on this, but not many people giving any in regards of that table. Therefore, I may decide tojust do it, and hopefully not break any policies. That's why I would like feedback from everyone.  :)  However we made need to get a third opinion on the matter.   -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * darkwarriorblade - For me to come up with differing labels for the section would not be any better. My opinion is not any better than yours. Both of our opinions is just that, opinions. Subjective. Original research. Which is not appropriate. As for more prominent characters being listed further down the page? I don't see that as a problem. We wouldn't be claiming to be listing them by prominence anyway.


 * As for what I was saying above? I can rehash more concisely in point form for more ease:


 * - Listing by 'importance' is subjective and is original research


 * - Excluding characters from a character list page is not encyclopedic. If a wikipedia user readded the deletedcharacters arguing 'this is a list of saw characters and those I am adding a Saw characters', I would have a difficult time arguing against that. In a list, if the content fits the category it should be included. As for 'unimportant' characters? See point 1.


 * - The info on each character should not be full biographies but brief descriptions that should be limited to 6-8 lines maximum for ANY character. If this is followed the article won't be uneven or bloated unevenly here and there.


 * - Arguments that information on minor characters is on the filmpages and describing them here would be doubling up? the same could be said for all the characters - eg, Lawrence Gordon's description. So your basis for excluding some when the others you don't want excluded have the same issues is problematic making your claim for deletion inconsistent.


 * - That a more important character is further down the page is not an issue in my opinion. This is like a reference page, a glossary and that's it. This article is not a ranking and should not attempt to be.


 * - Deciding to delete characters because there are now 'too many' is not adequate. This franchise has become successful and deleting content in response to that as reactionary means is not appropriate. We need to arrange this so that it is well navigatable regardless of how many films and characters have been and will be created. And 'first appeared in' arrangement would suffice no matter how many more sequels are made.


 * - The current structure is difficult to navigate. Arrangement by 'first appeared in' would have the characters more evenly divided and easier to navigate - and done so in an objective manner.


 * mike allen - What I don't like about your template is that it lists Jigsaw, Amanda and Kerry a second time under Saw II. I disagree with doing that. They should be listed ONLY under the film they FIRST appeared. And that's all. 123.3.182.78 (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Appeared in
Can we get some kind of consensus on what should be appearing here? I'm sure I'll be told its unencyclopedic but listing them as appearing in films just because stock footage was used for a flashback doesn't seem quite valid. Some of these listings seem to be for them appearing in a montage of victims for less than a second.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe our source on this should be Lionsgate and what they have listed. 123.3.182.78 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed character lay out
See here.

This is to display layout suggestion only. Actual content would require more work...

As can be seen, some character descriptions are far too long and need to be trimmed down. No character should have a full biography but only a brief description of several lines in my opinion. And as can be seen, under this format, there is plenty of room to add more characters under the sequels (and also to unmerge characters that have been shoved into one entry) without the worry of bloat. Yeldarb68 (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I really like this. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on I've trimmed a lot of them down by like 2 paragraphs in some cases, boiling them down to bare essentials, I think I'm doing a decent job at it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blake, we could use your descriptions and use Yeldarb layout? I like their layout, much more easier to navigate. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope my descriptions would stay or I've wasted a big chunk of my time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blake after further reviewing it, it seems they did include your descriptions. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 03:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding your new descriptions and am going to revert the page to the new layout. --04:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, yeah, darkwarrior's work on the content should be kept. The stuff under my user page is content from AGES AGO just remembered. Yeldarb68 (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The only complaint I have, and its only a minor possibility, is what if theres an entry in thje series that features no new characters that haven't appeared elsewhere?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blake, what do mean? Melisa Sting was in the video game.  Mike Allen talk · contribs 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh its not important until it happens. Other thing, I noticed someone has added someone called Cowan, an FBI agent who placed a trace on Strahms phone. Now I know that the unnamed IP says its a list and should be as comprehensive as possible but that kind of entry is surely on the same level as Crime Scene Photographer in that they are props and nothing more. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea... I didn't even know such character existed. Until and IF such character plays a bigger role in the films, they shouldn't be added.  I just don't see people coming to Wikipedia to see who the CSP and Cowan is. lol  Such things can be found (the actor/actress) on IMDb. PS.  Wait a min, where's Dr. Heffner at?  I believe he is vital enough to be added.  He did do the autopsy of Jigsaw AND all of the Jigsaw victims.  He was also the one that discovered a different knife was used in the Seth Baxter trap/murder to cut the jigsaw puzzle piece off of him.  ;-)-- Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * K, don;t think I could do any moer with the descriptions than I have, I've boiled them down to as much bare-essential as I can.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr Gordon in Saw 7?!
How can he be alive when we see him with a missing foot at the end of the first film? -- 92.2.178.82 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why he is listed as "Unknown", not alive, because we do not know until the film is released. Also, Simone survived with cutting her whole arm off.  Mike   Allen  21:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

David Tapp deceased?
I don't think the movie is conclusive as to his death. Any other sources that verify he is actually dead? MrTwig (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The cannon ending of the Saw (game) concludes that he survived Zep's gun shot but later comited suicide. STAT -Verse 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed in 'Saw V' and 'Saw II: Flesh and Blood', the sequel to 'Saw: The Video Game' EDIT: That is, his death is confirmed 2birds1stone (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Jenkins
Just curious but is the part about her NOT being in Saw 3D because they didnt think it was worth it really worth noting? Im sure theres plenty of characters they tried to bring back but couldnt get a good story for or get the actor/actress Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it's just trivia? I don't know.. I guess it was added to let readers know that she was considered to have a role in Saw 3D but was cut due to it being such a small part.   Since Tara is back, the part was probably showing the ending of Saw VI again and what happens next.  Mike   Allen   23:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess trivia would be the most apt description for it, since it relates to an apparently non-existent role/character development, its just there. Its not like say, some unreleased concept info that says "She was originally going to be revealed as Jigsaws final apprentice".  Its just saying "They thought of an idea and didn't go with it" but Im sure this could be said of almost every living character that appears in the series, they all tend to get drawn into future films.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Billy
Shouldn't Billy be in here? After all, he's become an (if not the) icon of the Saw series. ||| Billy  the  Pup  pet  07:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

STOP PUTTING SPOILERS IN YOUR EDIT SUMMARIES
It shows up in peoples watchlists and ruins the whole goddamn movie.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Adams's fate in Saw IV
In Saw IV,

Jill Tuck: He [John Kramer] was diagnosed with cancer soon after that.

Peter Strahm: Did you try to contact him again?

Jill Tuck: I tried, but a different person crawled out of the wreckage. Someone else+ survived.

Then, Jill picks up the pictures of Cecil Adams in John's workshop.

John: I asked you not to come here.

...

Jill: (Showing John Cecil's pictures) What have you done to him?

John: I told him not to take life for granted.

+ It is very reasonable to infer that the "someone else" who survived was Cecil Adams.

This is consistent with John's belief that everybody deserves a chance and Cecil's will to live.


 * Um.. no he didn't survive and we don't infer anything here.  Mike  Allen   08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cecil's death is shown on screen, is that good enough refutation for you? What Jill is saying is that John changed in the crash, and is not the man he used to be. 2birds1stone (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Saw 3D characters
Shouldn't the garage trap characters and Alex & Sidney be merged into two paragraphs each, just like Brad, Dina, and Ryan ?IchiGhost (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep!  Mike  Allen   05:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's done, but I wasn't exactly sure who Jake's actor was; it said Benjamin Clost on IMDb...but I'm not sure if that website is reliable or not. If there are any changes that need to be made, go ahead and do it. - W ANINOKOZ  (T ALK ) 05:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Alive, Dead, or Unknown: The Discussion
There's been some disagreements on certain characters (mostly Bobby and Hoffman) on whether they are dead, alive or unknown. Because we all know Wikipedia must inform readers if a fictional character is dead or alive. Anyway, according to the OfficialSaw.com. Click on the left pane "House of Jigsaw" → The Victims → at top click "Saw The Final Chapter". There it says Bobby is Alive. However, if you go the Saw section it has Dr. Gordon as "Unknown; likely Dead". Though, of course that could just be outdated---but everyone else is pretty accurate. What do others think about all of this? — Mike  Allen   06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Under "Saw 3D", if you click Next it states that Hoffman is Unknown, likely dead. Sooo. — Mike   Allen   06:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Status should be left out, since it becomes clear when you read the character description anyway.IchiGhost (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's being used the same way an infobox is for an article, to briefly summarize the contents. Believe it or not, many readers don't like to come to Wikipedia to actually.. read.  ;) — Mike   Allen   03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not like the ending of The Sopranos in which there is uncertainty of what happened and/or what the intention was. Here, it’s intention is obvious.  Hoffman is left for dead.  However, the story ends before his death.  Not once does the series claim anyone to be immortal, so the film’s implication that Hoffman will die is no different than any other survivor because no one in the series is immortal.  So why do we list them alive?  The answer is because the story doesn’t show them die nor does it (in Hoffman’s case) claim the character has died--it implies he will die, and so what? Won’t all the characters die eventually--nobody is immortal are they?  (There is sarcasm just in case you didn’t pick that up)  Point being, the story ends with Hoffman still alive, therefore he should be listed as “alive”.  An implication is nothing when it refers to a future that never happens.  Geeky Randy (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see Hoffman going down that easily (he's not immortal, but he has alarmingly good survival instincts and luck). Also, consider that there were 8 Firday the 13th films after 'Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter'; iconic horror franchises don't end when they say they will. The point is, you can't assume him dead. I agree with Geeky Randy, the movie ends with him alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2birds1stone (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DVD Commentary
There is an editing war going on considering information that was revealed on the DVD commentary. Is such info considered canon or do we only accept stuff that was actually in the movies?IchiGhost (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is good information and is accepted. However, who ever is inserting the material is not including a citation (cite video), along with the time the scene occurs within the video--for verification. Thanks. — Mike   Allen   00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone can't count...
The enumeration of the films in the opening paragraph is prefaced with "The series comprises seven films..." and then precedes to list eight. This has been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.142.210 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

8 films shouldn't be listed at all, because 8 films DO NOT EXIST. Until Saw VIII is MADE, the series comprises 7 films. 24.163.122.150 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead-in reads that the Saw franchise contains 8 films, which is flat out false. Saw VIII has not been made. It seems only a handful of statements about its development are all that exist; even if more details have surfaced the article should not read that the "series comprises 8 films." WP:CRYSTALBALL 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed by User:MississippiSouth-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Idea: Maybe Logan should get his own page like other jigsaw accomplaces
just an idea

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Saw characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.megaupload.com/?d=L0XMTV1G
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022009/http://www.demonfm.co.uk/?q=node%2F1449 to http://www.demonfm.co.uk/?q=node%2F1449

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)