#Laura Kramer

[thidwickdoodles]

Okane, Laura, & Clae

A redraw from 2019, where I read the first book—fell in love with this trio—and then never picked up the last two books because I was afraid romance would be introduced (it was not, it’s amazing)

All to say, please go read this series

[gordonsicedcoffee]

EMMANUELLE VAUGIER as ADDISON CORDAY SAW II (2005) dir. Darren Lynn Bousman

[dikdikpronouncedxylophone]

[mirroredmemoriez]

Amanda and Cecilia think thonks (THIS IS NOW GENERAL RANDOM SAW THOUGHTS)

“I grifted off his name. Shitting on his legacy was just a bonus I’ll admit that.” - Cecilia on her fathers work/legacy

“It is I who will carry on John’s work after he dies.” - Amanda on John, who basically is her father and his work/legacy.

Don’t know why these lines intrigue me, however I’ve kinda stated before how I find the comparisons between these two interesting. I don’t believe they are perfect mirrors but there are some similarities to look at, alongside their major differences as well. Cecilia uses her fathers name to benefit herself, she takes advantage of it and others to get what she wants. She is aware that what she is doing is wrong and if found out, would tarnish the Pederson name. Whereas if we turn to Amanda, she heavily dedicates herself to continuing John's work and the Jigsaw legacy. However, obviously throughout the Saw franchise, she begins to question his methods and goes against them. One takes advantage, the other is taken advantage of.

“I rob, I steal and I cheat.” - Cecilia

“I’m a murderer. He took my life from me, so I just returned the fucking favour.” - Amanda

They both admit what they're doing isn't correct to a degree. However, neither has or likely will stop what they're doing. Cecilia scams and Amanda rigs her traps to be impossible, in a way her own form of scamming? What I mean by that is, the whole point of the traps is to be a lesson- It's supposed to be escapable, any survivor of it will tell you that... Obviously, there are some places to question the tests/traps even outside of Amanda, but we're not looking at that right now. Anyway! She basically scams people out of a chance of surviving due to her own past experiences. Lynn Denlon in Saw 3 being a perfect example of this really? She died due to the shotgun collar going off yes, but she likely would have anyway due to Amanda shooting her- Which Lynn had already PASSED her test by that point really.

(Honorary Angel Trap mention) I don't think I have to go too in depth about how Cecilia scams people, but she doesn't just take their money. She also in her own way takes their lives- They leave thinking the treatment will help them, spending savings and such when really it's fake. We’ve also got the fact that Cecilia outright murdered Gabriela. This comparison of their characters and the reception to them by the fandom/audience is something I find fun! Yes, people dislike Cecilia for being a scammer, but the main cause of people's hatred that I've seen isn't even what she did to John? At least here on Tumblr, it's the fact that she killed Gabriela.... The reason I find this ''fun'' is because well, Amanda was the one who put Gabriela in that scenario in the first place and yes of course- We have to acknowledge that Gabriela was part of the scamming which is why she was tested alongside her being a drug addict, however at the end of the day I think it's agreed upon that base level, she isn't a terrible person. She did what she did to survive. So I wonder, if Gabriela had just died in her trap, whether there would be uproar about her death? Would people be angry at John and Amanda the same way they are at Cecilia? And to answer my own question, I don't actually think so. I believe this because of the circumstances of death, reactions and the reason why. Cecilia didn't just kill Gabriela whilst she was in her trap, she did it afterwards. She effectively stole her ''second chance'' because of how money hungry she was. Cecilia also showed no remorse for doing such. Then we have Amanda's reaction.

It goes without saying she was likely rooting for Gabriela the entire time, she reminds Amanda of herself for one and she's also distraught because Gabriela did WIN. I see this as a catalyst to Amanda's future behaviour alongside deaths such as when she ''mercy'' killed Adam and then Laura from Saw 2.

I'm also going to drop this link to a previous post I made, which I think fits in to what I'm saying here and possibly adds to other points. (I have a tendency to repeat myself or ramble)

Almost nobody in the Saw franchise is either fully ''good'' or ''bad.'' That's what I like about it, they are people with faults- Some characters have more redeeming qualities/traits, others not so much. The most beloved characters are likely the Jigsaw apprentices (And Adam). At least the MAIN three ones. Which, let's go over their crimes!

Fun fact! These kinds of crimes are the type that would land you in PRISON. It goes without saying that the moral compasses of all 3 of these characters are basically broken or spinning constantly. Yet, as I stated before- Amanda, Mark and Lawrence are some of the fan favourites of the Saw franchise.... And don't get me wrong, I'm an Amanda fan myself for example! However, it's so interesting the reception these guys get compared to other characters in media and generally in the Saw universe. If we go black and white/narrow our views, they are actually the villains at some points. The crimes speak for themselves and generally whilst watching the movies, you're supposed to be rooting for the people to get out of their traps- Not always mind you, but a good percentage of the time. So many people justify their actions due to their backstories, a common thing for villains and or ''bad guys''. It's understandable, because the shit all of them have gone through would definitely leave anybody unhinged... At the end of the day though, that doesn't mean they should be excused. I think I'll end this here because I've gotten so sidetracked? As I always say at the end of something like this, these are all just my thoughts and opinions- Not fact or concrete either, I'm open to discussions with people who disagree with me for example! IF YOU'VE GOTTEN THIS FAR DOWN! THANKS FOR READING, ANYBODY WHO LIKES AND REBLOGS MY RAMBLINGS DO MAKE MY DAY. -MAL OUT

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

1) Amanda is excluded because (Hello Zepp starts to play)

[puppyuserboxes]

Saw character userboxes (part 2, Saw 2005)

please do not get into discourse about whether or not you like the characters in the tags or replies!

[wolftattoo]

never forget how amanda was the first and also suffered the most AND was the most dedicated to john

[hannahwatcheshorror]

JIGSAW (2017)

One of the most satisfying of the SAW movies. Cruel, ironic, puzzling, and intricate. I was concerned going in that this would be the beating of a dead horse but it was instead a song of triumph for the series. Heart Pounding, intoxicating, and sexy, this film is a worthy addition to an amazing series. The games and deaths felt deserved and purposeful but also fair and satisfying. 

⭐⭐⭐⭐.5

Jigsaw is back with five unsuspecting villains who need to work their way to confessing their crimes. Starting with chains leading them to saws, the first victim was unconscious and missed the rules thus "disqualifying" him. The rag tag team of misfits (brought together more by chance than common theme) meet a purse snatcher who is presented with an obvious solution to her poison problem but instead tries to leave the group hanging (ha). Acid in the blood frees the gang up but leaves them with three.

 An attempt to leave through a "no exit" door costs one hapless male his leg as he must choose not to let the other two people left drown in grain. The nephew killing conman is sent into a blender of sorts which leaves us with a daring duo who come face to face with John himself. The gun fires backwards, taking out our child killer while the drunken male is left for dead. Flash forward to the future where Logan, our doting protege of Jigsaw is getting jiggy with Halloran, the man who let criminals roam free, like the one that killed Logan’s wife. A stunning twist with a fake death reminiscent of the first film, what an amazing ode. "I speak for the dead."

JIGSAW REWATCH

I knew this movie had a version of grain suffocation in it but it made more sense to me because they were being buried in grains, I didn’t know until A QUIET PLACE that you can sink in from the top which is somehow more terrifying and stressful. And, I love that Logan stood up for Eleanor, but he totally almost got her shot by Halloran and that was also stressful.

This movie did a really fun version of the whole time jump thing without making a big show about it like in SAW II. It was very clever to have this be one of (if not the first) Jigsaw trap and yet also still be the 8th movie in line. Bringing back Tobin Bell as Jigsaw, not so much as flashbacks, but presently because we didn’t know how long ago the game was being played and the cult of Jigsaw was making it seem like John Kramer was still alive out there. Really a fun film that I am still impressed with. Wish it had a few more familiar faces but we got a bit spoiled by that from SAW 3D.

[jackienautism]

briefly talked abt this w/ my friend (hiii @kilowattsons) (dont read this if you dont want too many spoilers) after i FINALLY watched saw (2004) w/ them but i just. i jsut. ii..

throwing my SMG followers a bone rn. but hear me out hear me out. laura and travis + amanda and john parallels. esp in fanon context

I JUST. to preface this i KNOW that amanda canonically refers to john as her father, but that ddef doesnt make the relationship any better fdgkfng butOKAY OKAY. HEAR ME OUT

it pisses me OFF how (outside of that dumbass batch of ppl that ship them ...) fans REALLY tried to make travis out to be some sort of uncle figure for laura and thats just ..... not how things work? kdfgnf no matter HOW you spin it, their relationship will NEVER be healthy, unless you wanna have something so DEVOID of canon, which is just annoying. like. at that point just make up your own characters DSFKGNFDGK LIKE. travis and laura will not and can NEVER have a relationship where things arent icky or bad. and if you say otherwise youre just too indulged in fanon and i recommend playinmg the fucking game again

but the same goes for amanda and john yk... it jjust. their relationship is MEANT ot be one of toxicity and whatnot. its not MEANT to be healthy. but (and i see this a LOT) ppl love to paint a picture that shows them in this normal and loving relationship and to me its jsut ???? dont get me wrong i ENJOY seeing these characters in happy and normal contexts, but sometimes its just.. it becomes so far from canon that it becomes almost .... ignorant? like youre purposely avoiding the canon material and making things that only YOU wanna see? if that makes sense? which, once again, there is no problem with. i of course indulge in stuff like this from time to time as well but its just .... this is fucking saw we're talking abt. its not meant to be happy or w/e

the only reason WHY this relationship exists is bc of the saw world and the in world contexts. outside of it (if everyone and everything were cookie cutter and happy and not Bad) there wouldnt be a need for john to have amanda and for amanda to have john. bc in a "happy" case, john woudlnt have lost his child. and amanda woudlnt have a shitty relationship w/ her father. the NEED for them both wouldnt exist if everythign were ideal

i hjavent rly looked for it much but the whole "jigsquad" thing is just sooo ..... like. i dont want to be mean ! and i get ppl can do whatever they want w/ the media they consume ! but ! it annoys me kdfngfg bc realistically nothing in this world is healthy and its sort of annoying when ppl make it out to BE healthy. like. thats the whole appeal of these characters and their relationships. theyre MEANT to be bad for each other. theyre MEANT to be toxic. theyre NOT meant ot have a normal relationship! and writing it as such defeats its original purpose!

ok back to travis and laura . like. first things first travis being a cop and locking her and max up for 2 months already deters them from having a good and meaningful and normal relationship lmao . but at the end of chapter 9? he manipulates himself and his situation to get laura to help him in his family bullshit. aka . killing a person she knows absolutely nothing about. shes not a shitty person, so of COURSE shes goingn to say "sure" to the person tthats practically begging for her help. and in this line of events, she can even be killed! like! and travis should fucking know this! hes willing to use this girl hes traumatized for his own gain! to solve HIS problems! its fucked up

and do i even need to say how john used a girl hes traumatized for his own gain? its written all over the movies brother. and in canon, he DOES end up killing her! he leads her to her demise! yes i kn ow hoffman's note is essentially what lead amanda to her demise but. john is the one who put this all in motion and who wanted to test her again despite beating her test in the original movie. and for making it through the bullshit of saw ii

but yeah. long story short. ppl making it seem like that these 2 duos have good familial relationships is so just errrghhhh . in laura and travis' case, this is NOT the answer to being a normal person and not shipping them. they shouldnt have a relationship at all realistically lmao. and the same goes for john and amanda, even if amanda canonically relies on and sees john as a ffather figure. if it werent for their pasts, they wouldnt need each other

basically what im saying is that. travis and john traumatize these girls then eventually uses them to further their own agendas, which get them (or can get them) killed. and yet fandom LOOOVES to see them as this normal healthy familial dynamic and it pisses me off and and and

[behindthescreamz]

laura vandervoort as anna alongside tobin bell as john kramer and paul braunstein as ryan filming scenes in the “tuck’s pig farm” on the set of “jigsaw” (2017)

[elishamanning]

5 November 2023

[thidwickdoodles]

That one Spiderman meme

[thecurvycritic]

Keaton and Kunis are Magnificent in Goodrich

Kramer vs Kramer was the first time I'd seen a parent bounced for the sake of mental peace. #Goodrich gives a modern twist and its fascinating to behold. https://wp.me/p2v8yf-6Gm #milakunis #michaelkeaton #podcast

For families of divorce, the transition is never simple or cut and dry. The children are often the first to suffer from confusion, parents fighting over custody as if the kids are property assets to be divided and the kids often times blame themselves for the split. What’s worse is when a parent disappears with no warning feeling overwhelmed by life and the the family they have helped to…

[adamwatchesmovies]

Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt? (2014)

There’s something deeply satisfying about the failure that is Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?. The first film had a budget of $20 million. It tanked at the box office. The sequel had a budget of $10 million and tanked as well. This third chapter was made with a budget of $5 million and earned less than $1 million in ticket sales. All three films feature a completely different cast despite being released only 1-2 years apart. If these movies were good, or even passable that would be depressing but these films are part nut-job parable, part cheezy romance. If there’s an entry in this series that’s so bad it’s good, it’s Part III: Who Is John Galt?, though whether it’s worth sitting through two films to have a couple of laughs at its expense is another story…

After pursuing Quentin Daniels to a remote part of the country, Dagny Taggart (played this time by Laura Regan) crashes into an invisible barrier. She’s discovered Galt’s Gulch, a hidden valley where the United States' brightest minds have retreated to avoid the government's oppressive over-regulation of companies and products. Dagny is told by John Galt (Kristoffer Polaha) that she and Henry Rearden (Rob Morrow) are the only people missing from this new hidden society of free entrepreneurs and inventors. Is Dagny ready to abandon Taggart Transcontinental and the rest of the outside world, or will she continue a fight everyone else thinks has already been lost?

At the end of Atlas Shrugged: Part II, I wondered what the point was. So much of the second movie reiterated what we had already been told. What unsuspecting plot points or revelations could possibly justify this book by Ayn Rand being turned into a trilogy? As this film begins, you’ll double-underscore that question because Rearden, who for the most part has been an important secondary character, is basically written out of the film to make room for John Galt, whom Dagny instantly falls for. It’s like a demented version of a fairytale conjured up by some loony objectivist. After falling into Galt’s magical kingdom, Dagny is confronted by the mystery man whose name is spoken like a curse in the outside world. What a surprise! He’s handsome and charismatic. Best of all, he believes that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism will ruin society. If that doesn’t make a lady want to take off her clothes, I don’t know what does.

The film tries so hard to make John Galt into a hero it becomes comical. At one point, he hijacks a broadcast by the President of the United States - oh, sorry. I mean the “Head of States” (Peter Mackenzie) - so he can deliver a message of rebellion and hope to the people. We're supposed to see him as some Bizarro world version of V. After heroically giving himself up, he is tortured by those goons in the White House in a way that resembles a crucifixion way too much to be a coincidence.

Who Is John Galt? is so hammy you might lose track of the film’s message, which is the same as before. The big enemy is the government. Yeah, there’s been some interference from Dagny's useless brother, the President of Taggart Industries (Greg Germann, whose character has a sub-plot that amounts to so little it must have been included solely because it was in the source material) but it’s those meanies up on Capital Hill that have been causing all the trouble. They insist on breaking up monopolies, taxing the rich, forcing wealthy states to share their money with poorer states, etc. Remember that last one. A turning point in this film that shows just how evil the Head of States is comes when we learn that a trainload of grains meant for a poor state is being diverted to another. “But the people will starve!” screams Dagny. “Why does she care?” you’ll ask. “Didn’t she previously tell us that altruism is for dummies and soft-headed care-bears?”

The biggest joke in this whole movie comes during the end credits when we see that the film’s budget included contributions from Kickstarter supporters. It’s so ironic I wonder how many of them sent money to director J. James Manera so they could metaphorically piss all over this film and on Ayn Rand in the process. If she believed in half of what this film exposits, she must’ve been one of the most uncompassionate, cold-blooded reptiles to ever disguise herself as a human being.

It’s easy to find things to say about a movie like Atlas Shrugged Part III: Where is John Galt?. My friends and I watched it together and our collective suffering will make us a more tightly-knit group. That doesn’t mean I recommend you watch it. The first two parts are so dull and infuriating that the “homework” needed for you to understand the irony of this cinematic blight just isn’t worth it. (On Blu-ray, April 7, 2023)

[mirroredmemoriez]

GABRIELA SAW X THINKS AND FEELS

Got bored so it's time to yap about Saw characters, today on the chopping block is Gabriela! Mainly Gabriela is compared with either Adam or Amanda, for similar and also different reasons. When it comes to the comparisons, with Adam it's usually down to the fact she and him both ''won'' their traps but were both still killed at the end (Also their wet pathetic demeanour said with all the love)- Then with Amanda, it's how both were drug addicts... Amanda basically seeing herself in Gabriela and seeming to root for her to win.

She's likely most peoples fav new character coming out of Saw X, she has the most content produced out of all of the other introduced characters for example. However, I think one thing I don't always agree with from my own perception is how she's painted to be almost an angel (Within the fandom)? Gabriela is by no means an evil person, it's very easy to be sympathetic to her situation and I don't think that's a bad thing. But also- SHE IS IN HER TRAP FOR A REASON? Just the same as Valentina and or Mateo or someone like Adam/Amanda.... But the reception she gets to me at least seems different. First I'll get it out of the way that this is slightly due to the fact she's shipped with Amanda, which I do believe shipping generally sometimes changes fandoms perceptions of characters or tries to put them more so into labels? With that said, I also am aware of power imbalances between the character (Such as Mateo being the one who supplies Gabriela oxycodone even if he states in the movie he will no longer be doing so going forward).

It's hard for me to exactly pinpoint and or explain why I think this is when I look at peoples portrayals slash discussions of her character... If I had to narrow it down, I believe it's because I feel as though people don't put the same effort into analysing characters and exploring the nuance of them when it isn't a VERY VERY beloved/popular one- And the argument to that is screen time, which does make sense? We get more of a feel for characters such as Amanda, John, Mark, Lawrence and yada yada, due to them being recurring characters... Then with Adam, even though he dies in the first movie? That first movie is solely focused on his and Lawrence's story mainly and not multiple characters, so the audience forms more of an attachment to him and his personality... However! I personally love looking at all characters so here I am. To me and likely everyone, Gabriela is a young and lost woman... She's basically going through what we as the audience would assume as the roughest patch of her life. She seems to be pretty early 20s and is obviously stated to be a drug addict, joining Cecilia's scam to feed her addiction with any money she gets paid with. Outside of this, we have no backstory to any previous occupations and or her education. Nor do we have any insight to friends and or family. This probably comes down to screen time and also the fact exploring any of this wasn't central to the story and the portrayal of her character- But generally, this paints Gabriela to be a quite isolated person outside of the scam. Personality wise, it goes with out saying Gabriela would have a manipulative streak from all the scamming and needing to be able to source drugs. Interacting with John she uses very basic speech to interact and lie to him, but in reality she seems to have no issue speaking fluently in English. It makes perfect sense with the knowledge she is apart of The Pederson Project, Cecilia wouldn't have chosen someone who's terrible at lying or putting on a façade at the end of the day. This doesn't make her an evil person though, as I've said before. Even though Gabriela is choosing to source her money by being a simple pawn in a big scam- She still holds noticeable humanity to a degree, seeing as she encourages those around her in traps and has a more considerable reaction to their deaths than compared to someone like Cecilia. I think when it comes down to the cancer patients before John, Gabriela had the thought process of out of sight out of mind and would probably not dwell too much on the ethics of what she was doing.

I think one thing for her character I'd have wished to see, is more interactions with people outside of a drug transaction and scamming an old man.... Oh and obviously outside of being in a death trap too- It isn't exactly an issue, but I think people spend too much time comparing or labelling Gabriela's character as a version of Adam or Amanda, more so than her being a separate person? Don't get me wrong, she very much so is a good comparison to make between the previously stated characters. However, I think I more so see her as a domino effect and even a symbol than being very alike to Amanda or Adam. Gabriela is one of the reasons Amanda starts losing belief in John's philosophy, which through that results in her murdering Adam.... In these ways? Amanda becomes what Cecilia was in that moment and within Saw X, Cecilia and Gabriela were a minor foil for John and Amanda too.

There are so many what ifs with her character and how that would impact the story moving forwards. What would've happened if Gabriela had just died in her trap? What would've happened if she survived her trap- Or if she had never been tested in the first place. She as a character is one of the biggest stepping stones (whistles at myself) in the franchise when it comes to the outcomes of others, as her death is a catalyst to Amanda's future erratic behaviour and killings.

But enough about Adam and Amanda- I can't likely explain this well either, but Gabriela gives off Laura Hunter vibes so much... And both of these women I just feel so bad for at the end of the day? Them and their fashionable coats... The wettest eyes and demeanour. Anyways! These are all just my opinions, you don't have to agree with them of course but I like yapping and discussing things like this, so feel free to reblog or comment if you've got your own opinion on what I've brought up here. If you've read this far down- Thanks? HAHAHAHHAH