5

Jigsaw/John Kramer dies at the end of Saw III. The fact that they had made 3 and have subsequently made 7 more, means by that point, they must've known that the movies were doing well and they were going to make many more, so why did they kill off John Kramer/Jigsaw so soon?

5
  • 3
    Not an answer but interesting to note that killing off that character did not make it impossible to make 7 more movies in the franchise. Someone might ask, "why not kill him off?" Commented Oct 13, 2023 at 4:39
  • A certain wizard died in Harry Potter book 6. That didn't stop them writing another book afterwards. The same wizard appears in all three movie prequels too.
    – Valorum
    Commented Oct 13, 2023 at 10:25
  • 1
    Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger died so many times too, and even their film title had the final chapter etc in it's name. Many movie franchises have ended with the trilogy in a more dignified way than dying longer franchises.
    – Ankit Sharma
    Commented Oct 16, 2023 at 15:25
  • Note, it doesn't seem to have stopped them featuring him in the latest Saw film!
    – Darren
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 15:10
  • @Darren yes I beleive the whole reason they made Saw X a prequel is because they're egret killing John Kramer so soon, and their desire to bring him back.
    – Ethan
    Commented Oct 19, 2023 at 13:18

2 Answers 2

6

they must've known

That's quite a bold assumption. Even a third entry can kill a franchise, and while they certainly could have hoped to milk the cow for years and decade, that would at this point only be an hope.
You must write your best story at every entry, because if this entry fails, what good would it be to have your 'best story' still in your hand...
And if you think your best story requires to kill your character, then you kill him, fair and square.

From a scenario point of view, from what I know of the stories, Jigsaw is a dead man walking from the first movie, having an inoperable brain tumor... Not killing him at some point would undermine the message.

Besides killing a character is never a reason to not bring again his actor/character. From prequels to secret twins, from ghosts to simulated death, from parallels universe to reboot to retcon, from flashbacks to impersonators.

If having to deal with a dead character is an issue to your writer, you should replace him.

Additionally actors' contracts tend to have a number of films or season. When your franchise is blooming, but contract is up to renewal, outright killing (or open-ended cliffhanger) is an easy way to manage this renewal, and to prevent actor to ask too much 'because you can't do the movie without him', or on the other hand if the actor does not want to continue.
I have no idea if it is the case here.

1
  • Yes, that part definitely makes sense. His inevitable death and subsequent 'appreciation for life' is one of his main motives in what he does so it makes sense that him miraculously surviving late stage cancer for 15 years would undermine his entire justification for his 'tests'.
    – Ethan
    Commented Oct 13, 2023 at 11:18
2

After reading this article containing an interview for Saw X, I've learnt that the producers have actually answered this very question. They stated that, they themselves, at this point, have started to regret killing off John Kramer so early. They believe that the franchise would have greatly benefited from a longer reign of John Kramer, the original Jigsaw Killer. They explain that, at its conception, the franchise was only ever intended to be a trilogy and they never expected it to be as successful as it was and, therfore, never expected the franchise to run as long as it has.

1
  • this should be the accepted answer.
    – dna
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 7:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .