Talk:Saw 3D/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as entirely uncontroversial.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Saw 7 → Saw VII — This page should be moved to Saw VII, as per all the other Saw movies. However, that page is protected, so I'll list this one WP:RM. Teh Rote (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support if all other films use Roman numerals. Flamarande (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Saw VIII

I believe Saw VIII will still be made. They said Saw VI would be the last; however, we know there is a Saw VII. We know the only true ones who know are the writers, but would they really say if there will be a sequel (and spoil the ending)? I think not. They have not confirmed. They don't want you to know. The producers would not go through all the hassle of filming the final Saw film in 3D if they wanted to end it. 3D is most likely just a gimmick to boost the box office over Saw VI. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say now. Right now, this is the final one. Wikpedia is not a crystal ball. There were always plans since the fourth one to make at least four more. They never said the sixth one was the final one. Thanks for stopping by and happy edits. —Mike Allen 04:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction: before Saw VI was released, its page read that it was the "tentative" final Saw film. As we see now, Saw VII's page now reads "tentative". Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but was that sourced? This is sourced. —Mike Allen 05:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why I believe Saw VII will not be the final Saw film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlovecomputers (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you will have to wait just like the rest of us for infomation about a SEQUEL to Saw VII. (22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Interesting how now Cary Elwes will be back to play Dr. Lawrence Gordon. In my opinion, this will be the end of Dr. Lawrence Gordon but not Saw thanks to Dr. Heffner and Jill Tuck. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are things that hint at saw viii. those 2 pig heads helping Dr. Gordon are just part of it. in Saw iv, we hear "THE GAMES HAVE JUST BEGUN". this shows something really big about Saw series not an end.

And we all know that Saw v, vi, 3d have been sort of prepaid sequels. I mean they had to happen.

they are not the continuation of John Kramer's theory. what we definitely need here, is at least One sequel which is not about other characters [ like Hoffman's death or survival or those of Dr. Gordon ] but is about How games starts to be played after John's death for example by means of somebody like Dr. Gordon , if any.Hi bad man (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Yong Bosch

If I found any reliable sources other than the one in IMDB, is it notable to add in Johnny Yong Bosch who would be known as Garrett in SAW VII? 60.51.89.73 (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it would, if it's in fact reliable. I found that he's listed on Upcoming Horror Movie site. So is Chad Donella who has already been confirmed. The reason I added Shauna MacDonald and not Bosch, is because Kevin has already confirmed MacDonald being back (on the HOJ forums), but he didn't say anything about Bosch. He confirmed a lot of other cast, but since it's a forum, it may not be allowed. That's why we usually wait for a 3rd party site reports it, such as Bloody Disgusting, DreadCentral, ShockTilYouDrop, JoBlo, etc. What source did you have in mind? —Mike Allen 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is the "Official Saw" website and it looks as brutal but I don't really find it "Official" since it also contains a Forum section and especially it shows Rumors which Wikipedia doesn't truly allowed.

This is the link: http://www.officialsawforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=101117&sid=af77a12b278bab020c1940b3c26ddeae And I came across another one, which is Bloody Disgusting itself, but they didn't add Johnny Yong Bosch either yet, at all, because they don't have enough space or just the fact that Bosch's character would probably be just a cameo: http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/4190 And this would be from Shock Till You Drop but the cast shown is lesser than Bloody Disgusting and Official Saw put together: http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/films.php?id=11206 That's what I got so far as the whole Saw VII is still in its Pre-Production stage. 60.51.89.73 (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The first link is from the forum (see here) and is just a rumored cast. The names on the Bloody Disgusting is taken from IMDd. We'll wait from some official casting news (will be on the sites where the news is posted), because most of these names originated from IMDb, and it's just a big grey area. We just need to wait until something is official. Actually, Saw VII is in the middle of filming. Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Theory section?

Whould a Theory section be apprioite or is that not right for Wikipedia User:STATicVerseatide User talk:STATicVerseatide 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! That is a good question to ask. It depends on who is putting forth the theories. For example, neither of us can put personal theories forward because it is original research, which does not belong on Wikipedia. If they are theories observed by reliable sources, though, they could be mentioned in the article. For example, for this film, newspaper or magazines articles providing theories would be usable. It just cannot come from our own heads, unfortunately. If you have not already, I encourage checking out the Saw Wikia, which may let you put forth your own theories. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 01:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's a lot of theories out there about Saw. None of which are suitable for Wikipedia. Like the theory of Dr. Gordon surviving or dying. I suggest you register on the House of Jigsaw forum and add or read others. —Mike Allen 01:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What i expected to gather the most said theory's about saw that i've seen in different sort of forms User:STATicVerseatide User talk:STATicVerseatide 02:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No disrespect but if they were some "theories" in notable third party publications they probably would have been added already. I think it's mostly trivia. —Mike Allen 03:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dean Armstrong

A source here [1] states that Dean Armstrong is in Saw 3D. Is this enough to warrant him in the article? Also, a reminder to certain editors that discussions for improving the article are not to be removed. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 22:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No. —Mike Allen 02:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No what, exactly? The site appears to be official, his own resume lists Saw 3D first and foremost. If it's not valid, why? POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 02:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Because an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:FIRST.  Chzz  ►  03:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is independent of the subject? The site has not a thing to do with Saw VII? Also, I hope there's no animosity here, this is a different subject. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 04:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Having been in close contact with working members of the Screen Actor's Guild and Equity, I can say that Armstrong Studios is respected as an institution by the acting community. There's really no question about the validity of the information on the site. SAHornickel (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi SAHornickel, where exactly on that site does it say that Dean is in Saw VII? Thanks. —Mike Allen 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Other film and T.V. credits include: SAW 3D, Host of the CBC six part mini series..." SAHornickel (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Jordan (Powerslave), I hope there is no animosity here. I have been paying attention to the bad faith of two editors in particular. Let me remind both Mike Allen and Chzz to remain calm, to remain civil, and to cease with the negative behavior. Mike your foul language towards Jordan [2] is not acceptable behavior. Furthermore, do not call him a "troll" as that is a personal attack. Do not remove editor comments from this talk page either. Chzz, posting a block threat [3] on Jordan's talk page when you very well know he's done nothing wrong, is not acceptable behavior. Both of you should know better. It's clear to me that Jordan's first language is not english. Stick to discussing the content and not the editor. Caden ^cool 05:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Caden! Some understanding is all I wanted.

I have no ill will toward anyone here, so let's just make the article the best it can be. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Really Caden? Then I suggest you read the outcome of the AN/I. Therefore the issue has been solved. This talk page is about improving the article. Do you have any comment on that? Thank you. —Mike Allen 06:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway back on topic of the talk page. I think we should wait until more information is available on Dean character. —Mike Allen 06:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then, logically, this should be removed: "Chad Donella has an unspecified role in the film[9]" S.A. Hornickel (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike, your sarcastic attitude is noted. Keep it up. You won't last long! And Jordan, you are welcome. As for the Dean Armstrong character, I see no reason not to add a mention of it on the article. If the source is reliable then no problem. Caden ^cool 06:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't act like you know me. I was not being sarcastic. What do you mean I won't last long? I don't have a rap sheet of blocks and warnings. @SA, I will do just that. :) —Mike Allen 06:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Chad and he was one of the first actors officially announced. He stays. When Dean Armstrong appears on the horror news site, he may be added. —Mike Allen 06:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Dean is an Equity actor, so there's really no reason not to believe that he's in it. Especially if his own site says that he's in it. I think the veracity of his involvement is really not in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAHornickel (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There will be an official cast list posted by LionsGate soon enough. There are no deadlines here. :-) —Mike Allen 06:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Title is "Saw 3D", NOT "Saw 3D: The Traps Come Alive"

Producers have confirmed that the title is in fact not Saw 3D: The Traps Come Alive, but rather is simply Saw 3D. http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=15773 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumMadnessStixon (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuity

Is Bobby Dagen the help Dr. Gordon promised to get in Saw? --Boycool42 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't know. Mike Allen 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Short Question

there is written "and the plot concept for Saw VIII being incorporated into Saw 3D.", that should be saw VII (7), not 8, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipper5004 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The plot concept from Saw VIII (Saw 8) was incorporated into Saw 3D (Saw VII). It's right. Mike Allen 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cast table

I was about to revert the cast table per the films MOS when I realized it actually had a column of info in it that some might feel warrants keeping it. Personally I don't feel like the "last film appearance" info is really necessary; none of the other films have a table detailing that sort of thing even though it's come up plenty of times with this series. But I thought I'd double check with everyone else before I went and wiped it out. Thoughts? Millahnna (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this final installment deals with a lot of returning characters from all the previous films, Erik and I felt a table of this sort would be informative to the reader. Before I had it all jumbled up in prose. What other way would you like for the article to display the information? :) Mike Allen 22:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I can see the merit in the table in this case for the reason you and Erik note. I just meant that had I been the one doing that section I doubt I would have bothered with the last seen issue. I can totally see why it's there though given the nature of the series. And now that I've dug through and found the prose version, yeah it was more jumbled than it seems like it would be in my head. And this film is going to have even more of the returning characters than any other installments have, huh? So yeah nevermind. Although now it's noted on the talk page in case someone else brings it up. So that's good. :D Millahnna (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the cast table may not be needed and just looks clumpy there. Most of the "survivors" from previous films had no speaking lines (most are just.. there. As much as Lionsgate hyped their appearance I thought they would be crucial to the plot, so wanted them in a cast list and the table seem to work.. at the time). I think the cast could be added to the plot like Saw VI has it done. I'm not sure if it's fair to not include an actor in the credits, but I don't think we can list every actor to the plot without it being bloated. Though if it's possible, I'm fine with it. Thoughts and suggestions on what to do? Mike Allen

That's an interesting development. With that being the case, I'm fine with doing away with the current table. I think I would recommend a simple bullet list for now, while this article gets a lot of traffic. (I would recommend avoiding character descriptions.) Maybe when the traffic dies off, you could do a simple-seeming table like at Black Swan (film) and Never Let Me Go (2010 film). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like that will work. Thanks. Mike Allen 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No more cast table of any sort in this article? I find relying on the plot summary to be impractical because a reader interested only in cast information has to sift through plot details. One's eyes has to "dance" across the body of the summary in a jagged manner. Using a list or a table improves access to cast information a lot more. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, about that. I have the cast list format I got from you saved in notepad, but I can't figure out if I should add the "main" cast, or all the cast? Mike Allen 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

lol a morron did a cast editing with the name "Matthew Theoudousoupoulus". Pointless but made me laugh. Nico92400 (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary is absolutely atrocious, not to mention inaccurate. It really needs a fix-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.5.193 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people haven't seen it yet. If you have seen it, maybe you can help fix it up? I'll see it at 8pm tonight. Mike Allen 19:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Will read through it later. Right now, I'm just very upset at this ending. Mike Allen 03:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers below:

I don't think anymore should be added to the plot, it looks like everything worth mentioning in the film is included. Jill's dream shouldn't be included (it's currently not, but just in case), since it adds nothing to the plot of this film, at all. It could be included under her character page. Some of Bobby's traps could be trimmed and the rest could used a copyedit. And, finally, I can't believe we actually got away with writing the Dr. Gordon plot at the end, without it being reverted due to vandalism. So surreal... Mike Allen 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the Car trap being mentioned at all. I reckon it should be, seeing as finding the Reverse Bear Trap at the crime scene is what leads Joyce to suspect Jill about being involved in the murders.109.255.136.211 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. However, I don't think we should go into a detailed summary of that trap, just that the trap was used as ruse (along with Bobby's trap) to lure the cops there while Hoffman goes after Jill? Remember we have a List of Saw characters that a more detailed summary could be added under their names. Mike Allen 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Btw it was Gibson, not Joyce. :) Mike Allen 17:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a rewrite, mostly because previous versions didn't even mention Gibson existing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Better than my bloated version. Thanks. Mike Allen 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes within quotes

On Roger Moore's review, is this the correct way to use quotes within quotes: "It’s all bunk and has been for years. These are all no-win scenarios. Whatever moral lessons were presented in the earliest Saw films seem to have been dispensed with as the movies grow more and more gruesome, with filmmakers caught up in 'What would it look like if somebody’s jaw was ripped out, or their skin was glued to a car seat?' Pandering to the 'Cool, let’s see that again' crowd has made Lionsgate rich but done nothing for this unendurable endurance contest of this long-enduring film franchise"? Thanks. Mike Allen 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct way. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

in the plot line, what happened to Jigsaw's wife is not mentioned and her death was quite memorable(reverse- bear trap anyone?). also for the traps, it needs to be mentioned of what they consist and perhaps how the characters die. Chester from linkin park's character and the actors that played his friends aren't mentioned either. they should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.186.105 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I know a lot of the reviews have been negative, but positive reviews should be included as well. I have seen some. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 05:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

E! Online is a positive review and it's already added. Entertainment Weekly is positive and I was going to include it... but he really doesn't review the film, only writes what seems to be a recap. Then he ends it with "They're made, and consumed, as a big bloody joke, and that's scary", while gives it a B-. Sounds odd. What ones have you seen? Mike Allen 06:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the installments of the franchise had negative reviews. This one seems to have almost only negatives. Its IMDB viewers rating, 6.4, makes it the third in the franchise ranking (after 1 & 2). I hope it ties in reality (cause i didn't seen it yet!!) Nico92400 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Box Office

35 millions on the opening week-end. It's the biggest week-end for any Saw , isn't it ? Nico92400 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, analyst go by the domestic (US and Canada) opening weekend, which was just $24.2 million. Saw II was the biggest opening of any Saw (domestically) with $87 million. Mike Allen 10:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

$87 million wasn't the domestic opening weekend, it was the domestic total. The opening weekend was in the $30 million range. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Gross revenue (infobox)

Does it count only theaters revenue or will it be edited with the DVD/Blu-Ray selling ?? Nico92400 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It only counts theatrical revenue. We can cover home video sales in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks. I don't have a clear idea of the importance of home video sales compared to theater revenue Nico92400 (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Adam Faulkner-Stanheight et al

Is there any mention of Adam in this film, and do other survivors of the Jigsaw killings reappear, like Corbett or Eric's son? -- 92.22.188.72 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Adam is, but is anyone else? -- 92.22.188.72 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Matthews is shown in a flashback only. Mike Allen 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing

And how can Greg Hoffman produce? He's dead! -- 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.188.72 (talk)

Well he's still credited as producer. Mike Allen 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

His heirs must be summarized as "Greg Hoffman" Nico92400 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about gore

It's not released yet in my country. Is this final installment the most gruesome of the franchise ?? Nico92400 (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say so. It was actually probably the least gruesome (at least to me.) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 11:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was asking because of the Rob Nelson review which called the film "relentlessly repugnant". Nico92400 (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is best asked on IMDb boards. Not here. Mike Allen 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

References format

I am wondering about the benefit of the current references format in which nearly all references are actually listed in the "References" section. While I can understand listing a reference in the section if it is used multiple times (easier to locate), it seems harder to edit where a reference is used once in the article body but is still listed in the separate section. Is this an approach seen elsewhere? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So the prose is easier to edit without having refs bunched into it. It's called List-defined references. I've seen User:MichaelQSchmidt (who I picked the style up from) and User:Jack Merridew use them. I guess it's an editor preference; I also use it with Resident Evil: Afterlife, Salt, Scream 4. Mike Allen 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; the format is new to me! :) I cannot say that I am a fan of it. Maybe I am too used to navigating around references in the editable window. It seems to disjoint work on the prose and work on the references themselves, which strikes me as too radical considering how many editors would be expecting to be able to work on both prose and references. It seems like the kind of format to use when you don't expect a lot of editors passing through to help out. I'm fine with the article using it, anyway... I just don't find it to be the ideal approach. :) (Ideal approach would probably be collapsible 'ref' tags in the editable window that could be expanded to edit. An editor can dream...) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if you do add the ref in the prose it will still render under the reference section. So any editor unfamiliar with this style can add the ref like they are used to and it still "works". I've read the Usability team is working on "template folding". Who knows when that'll be ready though.. Mike Allen 22:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I noticed that the article body had some references that were not listed in the "References" section. I think that this mixed presentation can make things even more confusing. If editors want to make a reference-related edit, there are two barriers as a result of the mix: they may go into the editable window for a content section and not find the full reference there, or they may go into the "References" section looking for the full reference when it's actually in the article body. It seems like this approach, to avoid that, would need extensive upkeep to make sure all references could be listed in the "References" section so there's no confusion. More finger-ache than it's worth. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Every ref must be named, so if an editor is editing the article's prose and needs to find the ref in the refs section to update/remove they can use CTRL + F to find it. I find this approach so much easier than having refs bunched all in the prose. It's just a jumbled mess. I spend more time (in big articles with many refs) looking for a ref within prose than I do actually updating it when I find it. I don't know.. I just find this way easier and more accessible. It's just another option we have on how to do things instead of "this is way that it must be done and you must confine yourself to this way only". I've read the criticism for LDR, but most of them don't believe in using cite templates. Mike Allen 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please Don't Post that Jigsaw's "Reign of Terror Has Ended"...

Whoever keeps posting that Jigsaw's "reign of terror" has ended as the final line... don't. This is not what happens at the end of the film by any means. The ending merely implies that Hoffman is dead/going to die, and the only clear indication from the ending relating to Jigsaw's reign is that Gordon and the two "Pig-heads" are continuing the legacy. Nothing in the ending suggests that it is over. And don't say "Well, Gordon won't continue", because nothing in the ending implies that he won't. We see that he was a willing accomplice and was clearly off his rocker a little bit. The film does not put its foot down and say "It's all over"- rather, it implies that the games could continue. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. —Mike Allen 03:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What a Surprise...

Now this is a really positive review. This should be included in the critical response section. -- 92.4.116.101 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot

in the plot line, what happened to Jigsaw's wife is not mentioned and her death was quite memorable(reverse- bear trap anyone?). also for the traps, it needs to be mentioned of what they consist and perhaps how the characters die. Chester from linkin park's character and the actors that played his friends aren't mentioned either. they should be.

Rating Catagory

Why does a link for an Australian Classification Board R rating point to the MPAA (United States Ratings) ratings page? Just wondering LReyome254 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Typeface

Throughout the article, the typeface changes on the Roman numeral; it makes it very difficult to read especially when the Times font is italicized. I would suggest uniformity in it, even if the stylization of the movie titles on their posters, etc., are in Times, for ease of reading. It is easier to read when all is in Arial or Helvetica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.137.167 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Eighth installment" (lead)

Per WP:EGG, we can't link "eighth installment" (in the lead) to Jigsaw (2017 film), as it's not the same Saw VIII that was planned to follow Saw 3D. Jigsaw is a film set to be released a full seven years after Saw 3D, with different writers, directors, and cast members (save for Tobin Bell). Even if concepts from the original Saw VIII are used in Jigsaw, we simply can't treat the two as the same film. DarkKnight2149 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)