Worst finale in TV history?
Undone everything before it and hilariously over the top in how grimdark it got. Also what was the point of the detective arc lmao
F
remember got
share
MovieChat Forums > Ojing-eo geim (2021) Discussion > Worst finale in TV history?
the detective and organ thing was just filler I think, it didnt matter to the story, the ending was a let down and ambiguous, did 456 reenter the game? it was cool though how they kept finding interesting ways to give him back that golden credit card.
share
There is no way the detective thing was just filler. The recordings he made will definitely come up in season 2.
That is if he is not still alive (which I think he is).
i hated it too, the guy with his morale high grounds and virtue is going to try to stop the game? how, by being a participant again and getting killed? he got so much money, he can spend his life with his daughter, help other people, etc.. instead he just chooses suicide by going back to the game, dumb dumb dumb.
shareCompletely agree.
This tv show was like a 7, even 8/10. The last two episodes totally ruined the show.
I'm sad that I worst my time watching this.
Yeah, it's all for season two. It really should have just ended with him giving a portion of the money to the people who died if he cared so much. But to gamble his life twice?
shareHe didn't gamble his life. Season 2 will be epic.
shareA lot of viewers think that Gi-Hun was calling the frontman to sign up for another round of games but I thought he told the frontman that he was going to stop the game. Most people would take the money and run but Gi-Hun is a hero. I don't think he is equipped with the skills and resources necessary to take on a bunch of billionaires but we'll see.
shareWell he has the money and resources now, so it will be interesting what he does with it.
shareI didn't get the impression he was going back as a contestant, but rather try and find them and tear it all down. He's got the financial resources now.
shareNot sure what you mean by "undone" because that didn't happen but I understand the disappointment because at first I too was disappointed but after letting it settle I think any other ending would have been cliché.
shareThe old man twist undone a LOT of elements primordial to the show. Which sucked.
shareI don't see how.
shareTheir friendship is voided. All the drama and the elements around their friendship are voided.
The old man "sacrifice" for his "friend" lost all the meaning since it wasn't a sacrifice at all.
Leaves a bitter taste ...
Yes but it doesn't "Undone everything before it." The old man believes the friendship is real, but that's because he has no real friendships and misunderstands what makes them work. The integrity of the game was violated, but it had already been violated previously, it could be argued that's part of the motivation for going back.
shareIt doesn't matter. The fact that his sacrifice was fake undermines all the love and the lessons in that story arc. It removes the human quality from a character and gets out all the value from the previous moments ...
shareI agree with you that it leaves a bitter taste and we are supposed to feel that way, but it was still real to the old man. It's probably the first time in his life he allowed someone else to beat him.
shareThe show is a critique of capitalism - equality with minimum wage workers and entertainment in wealth for the elite. That's the entire point of the show - the fact that wealth accumulation is pointless and can never give someone the feeling of actually trusting people.
The old man never had a friend, that friend actually tried to trick him.
Only the girl that sacrificed for her friend and her fiend were worth saving. We see every day people endure hardship in misery, and instead of helping them and build human bonds and give life meaning, we stay in our own bubble, exchanging words that mean nothing, trading favors for money. Can you still trust anyone in our world? Is man a wolf for man always, or can our species overcome its limitations and stop acting seflishly and deceptively, with greed or anger? The finale was a grandiose punctuation of the show's premisce.
Capitalism???
Lol, have you ever seen how worse is in socialism??
Castro's wealth is estimated at 1 billion while the rest of Cuba is dirt poor. Ceausescu had gold placated bathrooms while the people were starving. Kim Jong Un's wealth is estimated at roughly $5 billions. Stalin's had a total control over USSR economy and while it wasn't his personal wealth still ...
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-koreas-power-structure sounds more like what's in the movie than capitalism, with the strict hierarchy, including the staff and the "leader".
Have you ever experienced the gulag? Some reeducation/work camps in a socialist country? Or some socialist prison for political adversaries? Those were real "squid games", not movies ...
Sorry but capitalism is nowhere near the decadence and/or atrocities of socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube%E2%80%93Black_Sea_Canal#Forced_labor_and_repression
https://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789
I see it mostly as a critique of human nature and greed, not particularly capitalism. As an idea: the NK girl had no intention to return to the "socialist" heaven, her dream was to get her mother OUT of there and in the capitalist system, a bit weird, don't you think?
I wouldn't condemn all socialism since most European countries would be considered socialist. The US might even be considered socialist since businesses benefit from lucrative government contracts and tax code preferences.
There is also penal labor in the US so one cannot argue that forced labor only thrives in a socialist system. It could be argued that greed and capitalism work together.
Again conflating social services and welfare with socialism???
Europe is NOT socialist. It's capitalist.
USA is NOT socialist, it's capitalism.
It's funny how socialists start to deny what socialism is and attribute to socialism things that are not socialist. Soon we will hear that the invention of fire, the wheel and slice bread are socialist.
There's a difference between penal labor in USA and working people to death in those socialist work camps. The problem I mentioned was NOT with force labor in a penal system, I strongly support that, but how it's done.
Apparently you didn't read my post.
PS: anyway, it's so funny when you say "it's a critique of capitalism, not socialism, but anyway capitalism is socialism because - insert dumb reason here - but that greed is only in capitalism" lmao
I don't think there is a pure form of capitalism or socialism anywhere in the world. There are different schools/types of socialism. I think everyone would agree that living under tyrants like Stalin and Kim Jong Un are not acceptable.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Types_of_socialism#/Democratic_socialism
I may have been incorrect when saying that most European countries are socialist but I do believe they have a lot of socialist policies in place. Many economists have talked about social democracies in Europe and that appears to be a form of democratic socialism.
Airbus is an example of company that was founded/funded by multiple European governments to build passenger jets. Many critics have called it a socialist enterprise. Boeing was able to self-regulate the Boeing 737 Max so they cut corners and produced a death trap.
The article below highlights government subsidies that benefit corporations and are passed on to taxpayers. It also describes how the tax code benefits corporations and the corporations are paying lobbyists and campaigns to shape the laws that benefit them.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/268947-a-democracy-lost-to-corporate-socialism
I was only commenting on socialism and penal labor. I did not make the original post that you replied to. I contend that extreme/unbridled forms of capitalism and socialism are both bad. It would be nice if we could somehow agree on a system that would incorporate the best elements of both systems but it's hard to reach an agreement on anything.
I would say that Europe has reached a fairly balanced system. Capitalist.
I wouldn't consider democratic socialism to be equivalent to social democrary. Btw, I hope you are aware that ALL socialist countries are calling themselves "democratic" so adding that term to ... basically anything ... doesn't really make it so ...
From your link (did you read it??) a paragraph that I agree with:
" In the latter sense, social democracy is considered to be more centrist and is more concerned of gradual improvements of the capitalist system, the mixed economy, and the welfare state, while some more radical social democrats, who describe themselves as democratic socialists, support a more anti-capitalist reformism, or through more radical evolutionary means, including revolutionary means."
I wouldn't call the social programs "socialist" elements but at some point it's just semantics. Maybe would be better to not use these terms "capitalism is bad", "socialism is good" because both are inaccurate. Capitalism IS good and socialism IS bad.
So maybe instead of focusing on labels we should focus on policies that work best.
You will hear socialists saying "public healthcare is a socialist concept (it is not) so let's implement socialism because you want public healthcare".
And you will hear conservatives saying ""public healthcare is a socialist concept (it is not) and we don't want socialism so you shouldn't want public healthcare".
And both are wrong although most of us want public healthcare.
I never said Socialism was better, I was merely pointing the fact that the show is a sharp criticism of capitalism - the most sociopathic people (peope who are machiavelic and have less empathy) assume positions of power, while people who always play by the rules of capitalism may not even have a chance to begin with dependiing on their DNA luggage.
There is no question to me that it is the most efficient system at increasing productivity, purchasing power and material possession, what is unfair is not the system itself but the fact that competence (IQ, EQ, physical strenght, beauty) is so unevenly distributed amongst the population - capitalism exacerbates birth privilege.
A good solution is an amount of redistribution, but countries that remove the most harsh aspects of capitalism like France, also suffer from an inadequation between the workforce and the labor market, and have higher unemployment, and attract their share of freeloaders from all around the world as well.
But I don't think that's the aspect that was the most under criticism, the criticism was more on the fact that some people have so much that they bore themselves trying to get entertained, they forget that their wealth is the result of the DNA lotttery and forget that there are some out there who were much less fortunate. Capital accumulation has a purpose when it fosters innovation and employement through investments, but idle money helps no one. And it is often the most selfish and callous people who accumulate the most (psychopathy correlates with good rationa judgement).
As a species we are not just one type of human, people have varying degrees of empathy and machiavelism, and so it leads to some acting selfishly and deceivingly, while others care for others and empathize with human suffering.
With that I agree, as I said I don't see it as a critique of capitalism but of human nature,
shareI don't view a critique of human nature, because i the marble game every contestant had his own way of dealing with the challenge. On the contrary it showed the diversity of behaviors within the same species when asked to minimize risk and fight for survival.
sharePrepares a second season. With a vengeance ...
shareIdk if it was worst in tv history but it's pretty bad. I still think ENT and GOT were worse.
shareIt is because you are optimistic about our species. If you were pessimistic or idealistic, you would have loved the ending.
The show is a critique of capitalism - equality with minimum wage workers and entertainment in wealth for the elite. That's the entire point of the show - the fact that wealth accumulation is pointless and can never give someone the feeling of actually trusting people, the feeling of friendship, we lose that innocence the moment we are sent into the world to compete.
The old man never had a friend he could trust, he knew that even the kindest people make calculated judgements.
Only the two girls were worth saving, they both acted honorably towards each other and everyone else. We see every day people endure hardship in misery, and instead of helping them and build human bonds and give life meaning, we stay in our own bubble, exchanging words that mean nothing, trading favors for money. Can you still trust anyone in our world? Is man a wolf for man always, or can our species overcome its limitations and stop acting seflishly and deceptively, with greed or anger? The finale was a grandiose punctuation of the show's premisce.
The question will be whether the show ends up being idealistic, or whether it will remain pessimistic in its assessment.
Those of you who are used to Holliwood happy endings went in with wrong expectations.
I agree with a lot of your post except for the part about it being a critique of capitalism. It's a critique on the importance of wealth for the human condition, regardless of whatever system is in place. Those who are unable (like the paki migrant) or unwilling (like the protagonist wasting money in horse races) to accumulate wealth end up in a desperate situation. Doesn't matter if it's capitalism or no capitalism as evidenced by the history of the female NK that also ends up in a desperate situation.
Saying it's a "critique of capitalism" is just a biased assessment by someone who is presumably anti-capitalist.
If anything the real critique here is simply a demonstration on the importance of wealth for human dignity to be allowed to exist. People with no wealth is not something that is exclusive to capitalism by any means.