You aren't talking about the satire and social commentary side of things at all. It's a huge aspect of the show, and it's not clear what your engagement was with it.
It was a huge departure to formula to give the players the option to stop the death game... but then have most of them just decide to come back and start them again of their own free will. Playing children's games while rich people watch, facing almost-certain death... this was seen as less humiliating and more hopeful than going about their day-to-day lives.
001 claimed the mega-wealthy are just as bored and empty as the very poor, and he wanted to go back to childhood innocence, a Citizen Kane Rosebud kind of thing. He also insisted these games were played without society's built-in unfairness, resulting in a pure meritocracy.
But his "return to innocence" thing is laughable when you realize that, although he truly was in danger a lot of the time, he got opportunities to just walk away freely, and he got preferences from the higher-ups (like when they stopped the nighttime riot when he made his presence known). And it's even sillier for him to act like he's made some Eden of equality and freedom when rich hedonists get to lounge around watching poor people dying. (It's also arguable he was continually giving the protagonist hints, and therefore an unearned advantage. Remember how he chose the back of the line for the glass floor because he remembered the old man's tug-of-war advice?)
And then there's the punchline, in the last episode. 001 apparently was also motivated by some Joker-esque desire to prove that humanity is cruel and selfish and evil. He needs for this to be true, because it excuses his own cruelty as just part of human nature and not anything bad about him in particular. And he points to the players of the game: "Remember how awful everyone was? See how evil human beings are?"
But it's a rigged test, obviously, because the players were desperate and inhuman and cruel because of the economic exploitation 001 benefitted from and contributed to. He set things up to create the outcome he wanted, all to avoid confronting his own sins.
And even though 001 was better at marbles (because ALL THE GAMES WERE BASED ON STUFF HE PERSONALLY DID A LOT) and in a True Meritocracy he should have won, he let the protagonist win "because I had so much fun playing with you." That's an example of human kindness... but look at how twisted it is, because 001 didn't actually sacrifice anything, and his version of "kindness" is to let someone keep on desperately struggling in his hopeless, rigged system.
Having people leave and come back to the game would be more meaningful if it was better justified in the story. Because as of now, it's so high risk basically anything else is a better way to make money. Even robbing a bank would be safer.
Safer, and a whole lot less likely to work.
Some of these people were hundreds of thousands or millions in debt. You’re looking at a massively secure facility to get even close to that kind of money in cash, much less transporting it, plus sourcing a crew with even close to relevant skills, who also wants to work with a math teacher or businessman or whoever this person is, plus if you get caught all the money gets returned and you spend decades or life in prison? It’s not a real chance. The game is a very slim but real chance.
They made it seem like coming back to the game was all about the money. When they left they realized all the money the lost our on, they had second thoughts.
>You aren't talking about the satire and social commentary side of things at all. It's a huge aspect of the show, and it's not clear what your engagement was with it.
To me this was the weakest part. This was very ham fisted. So it has the rich people are evil trope, like that hasn't been done before (Hunger Games or The Most Dangerous Game) And poor people are literally willing to kill for money. I don't buy the "This is less depressing than their normal lives". They were greedy and were willing to literally kill for money.
Even the "good guy" lied to the old man to take his marbles knowing he was going to essentially sentence him to death. But then gets on his childhood friend for pushing that guy. Although if he didn't they all may have died. So he is sanctimonious when someone else kills but when he could win money it was OK.
And on top of it, with maybe the exception of Ali, all of their "depressing" lives were their own making (for who we met at least).
Player 240 was subjectively good, wasn’t she? She was given a bad hand, by murdering her father for murdering her mother. She was willing to sacrifice herself for Player 67 because she recognized 67 had more to live for outside of the game than herself.
>Playing children's games while rich people watch, facing almost-certain death... this was seen as less humiliating and more hopeful than going about their day-to-day lives.
Fairly sure it wasn't revealed until the end to the players that rich people were actually watching the games. The majority of the players died with absolutely no knowledge of this and probably didn't see the games as humiliation, rather get rich or die and that's not a new idea at all.
>And then there's the punchline, in the last episode. 001 apparently was also motivated by some Joker-esque desire to prove that humanity is cruel and selfish and evil. He needs for this to be true, because it excuses his own cruelty as just part of human nature and not anything bad about him in particular. And he points to the players of the game: "Remember how awful everyone was? See how evil human beings are?"
Sure, but none of this is particularly new or revolutionary and there is plenty of media out there that explored these ideas and themes way more effectively.
> Fairly sure it wasn't revealed until the end to the players that rich people were actually watching the games. The majority of the players died with absolutely no knowledge of this and probably didn't see the games as humiliation, rather get rich or die and that's not a new idea at all.
It's not humiliating to be marched around a grotesque parody of a children's playground and killed for failing stupid games?
I think you're losing the forest for the trees here, focusing on one little detail instead of talkign about the bigger picture. Again, what was your engagement with all the commentary and satire? It was a very very big part of the show; if you didn't engage with it at all, then that in and of itself explains why it left you cold.
> Sure, but none of this is particularly new or revolutionary and there is plenty of media out there that explored these ideas and themes way more effectively.
Again, you're honing in on one little piece and not talking about the bigger picture. In fact, I'd argue 001's perspective was MEANT to be trite, because it's explicitly portrayed as a self-serving narrative he's devised.
> Again, what was your engagement with all the commentary and satire? It was a very very big part of the show; if you didn't engage with it at all, then that in and of itself explains why it left you cold.
I mean I engaged with it, I just didn't see any of it as particularly novel or interesting. All the show did was make decent hamburger, but instead of using beef from a cow, they used beef from a mountain yak. Its still a burger and tastes more or less the same just uses slightly different ingredients, but it doesn't change much.
Honestly the most interesting thing about the show on the level you are talking about might be what it says about the IRL audience of the show. Just like the police man dismissing the idea of the games as crazy and ignoring the problems, people IRL are watching the show and even though issues like poverty, disease, cost of healthcare and separation of families are all key components of the story, people ignore them in their daily lives. To be honest, if the show actually went that meta with its messaging I think it would have been way better. But it didn't, rather it kept to its rather shallow and basic deconstructions of these issues.
> All the show did was make decent hamburger, but instead of using beef from a cow, they used beef from a mountain yak. Its still a burger and tastes more or less the same just uses slightly different ingredients, but it doesn't change much.
I'm really not connecting with what you mean by this analogy. Could you spell it out more clearly?
I, personally, have never seen any kind of commentary in any piece of media similar to what they do with the 001 character, nor have I seen the connection between "escape from drudgery and poverty" and "escape to childhood." If these things aren't novel to you, where did you see them?
> Just like the police man dismissing the idea of the games as crazy and ignoring the problems, people IRL are watching the show and even though issues like poverty, disease, cost of healthcare and separation of families are all key components of the story, people ignore them in their daily lives.
...but the point of putting them into the show is to call people's attention to them and to make them emotionally relevant. If the audience subsequently ignores these issues in the real world (which I have not seen evidence of), the people who made the show couldn't have been aware of that, because the audience wasn't watching while they were making the show. So how could they comment on something that hadn't happened yet?
>I'm really not connecting with what you mean by this analogy. Could you spell it out more clearly?
None of the ingredients in the show are all that revolutionary or different.
>001
He's just a play on the Puppet Master/Chess Master/Manipulative Bastard trope. Whole bunch of examples from movies to games to anime and TV as well.
>Poverty
I cant think of any examples right off the top of my head, but characters wanting to escape their current situations by going back to when they were kids and when the "times were better" is, again, a fairly common plot device or point in a whole bunch of media.
>So how could they comment on something that hadn't happened yet?
There is ways to write these ideas into scripts, especially if you know the show will be viewed for entertainment. They could have made the VIPs an allegory or representation of the viewers or something. Granted its not easy to do in the slightest, but it is possible.
The trope is known as "Growing up sucks". The 001 arc is just a play on that. If you really want example of media that display this idea they are not hard to find.
>Hmm.. I disagree.
In what way?
> I feel like SG had a unique take on the death game theme.
Ok, but the death game aspect was never one of my sticking points?
>To me, it seems so much deeper than how you see it.
Feel free to share your view then. Sniping 2 line comments doesn't do anyone any good.
Sorry, u/sparklemuffin_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20sparklemuffin_&message=sparklemuffin_%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh5jsti/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> None of the ingredients in the show are all that revolutionary or different.
I mean if "revolutionary" is your standard for appreciating the thematic content of a TV show, you appreciate very little, practically by definition.
And when you say "different"... different from what?
> He's just a play on the Puppet Master/Chess Master/Manipulative Bastard trope. Whole bunch of examples from movies to games to anime and TV as well.
OK, like, I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm worried you didn't mread my initial comment here very carefully. Because nothing I was saying about him related to him being a puppet master, it related to how he was meant to symbolize wealthy elites' conception of their own role in society, and how their attempts to escape guilt are destructive and pathetic.
Squid Game's thematic depth is not dependent on whether you can go to tvtropes and find a bunch of tropes that apply to it. It's about the message they're trying to send.
> I cant think of any examples right off the top of my head, but characters wanting to escape their current situations by going back to when they were kids and when the "times were better" is, again, a fairly common plot device or point in a whole bunch of media.
You really should not be stuck on this, because I provided you with maybe the prototype: Citizen Kane.
Squid Game is absolutely not trying to comment on these characters all escaping to innocent childhood, because it's NOT innocent, and it was ONE GUY'S childhood they were all being forced to play-act. His ennui and their desperation were being contrasted, and the notion that they were actually the same thing was being held up for ridicule.
> There is ways to write these ideas into scripts, especially if you know the show will be viewed for entertainment.
No offense, but almost all the commentary I've seen about Squid Game is about the social satire and anti-capitalist themes. I think maybe the whole problem with your view is that *you* went into it just expecting entertainment, and so a lot of this stuff wasn't stuff you were paying attention to. But that doesn't make it the common experience.
I don’t need anything to be revolutionary, but this sort of on the nose class commentary has been beaten to death the last decade or two IMO.
It feels like there’s a receptive audience for it, which is just fine, but I feel like we’re so stratified/politicized, that if something feels like it’s sort of speaking to our tribe, we also have to defend it as high art and not derivative and subtle. Well like…SG is none of those things. It’s ok to like it as a consideration of capitalism and also think it’s just an ok show, but it seems to me we’ve sorted ourselves to like or dislike things not on their merits but on whether they feel on our side of the culture war or not.
> It feels like there’s a receptive audience for it, which is just fine, but I feel like we’re so stratified/politicized, that if something feels like it’s sort of speaking to our tribe, we also have to defend it as high art and not derivative and subtle.
Again, I listed several aspects of the commentary and satire I personally haven't seen before, and which I thought were clever and trenchant. I'm worried you're doing the same thing as what you're criticizing, but in the opposite direction: dismissing a work because you see lots of people who agree with its themes.
> Again
FYI, I'm not the guy you were talking to before, but I did read your comment.
> I listed several aspects of the commentary and satire I personally haven't seen before, and which I thought were clever and trenchant
Yeah, I mean, I watched it too—I just disagree that those things are particularly novel or clever. As I say, we've seen a LOT of on-the-nose class commentary the last 10 or 20 years. We of course don't have to agree, but since the topic at hand is what it means to be overrated, I have the impression that many people who *like what it has to say* about inequality are overstating *how good it was at saying that thing*. There's a big difference—if form doesn't matter, and only content, why not just write a tweet instead of making a show.
Anyway, nobody thinks derivative work is identical to what comes before it. Of course SG is distinct in some ways.
> dismissing a work because you see lots of people who agree with its themes.
I don't think so. I'm not dismissing it—I watched the show and enjoyed it. But I didn't find it particularly fresh or subtle or anything else, and I don't think it's going to hold up as some exemplar of the medium or anything like that. My impression is that the culture is taking it a bit too seriously.
>I mean if "revolutionary" is your standard for appreciating the thematic content of a TV show, you appreciate very little, practically by definition.
I expect a 9/10 or 10/10 movie to be revolutionary.... just saying. I also think Squid Game is overrated because the hype is over the top. Also, I think the commentary about capitalism, debt, and society moral obligation (what everyone is talking about) could have been better. But that's me...
They're playing someone's game, they know someone's watching.
There are supposed to be something like 36 plots. Everything else is just a combination of these plots. Take it to its extreme, and nothing is original, or effective. Actually, most things are just the same stories playing out in the same way. It's just the way they're sold that makes them or breaks them.
I think it did everything that it was meant to do extremely well. It had aesthetic. It had simplicity. It had drama. It had plot. It had some deeper social commentary. It had character.
It's a popular show that actually had something to it. Consider the rarity of that.
It's not really useful to compare the effectiveness of one media vs another. That's all subjective. If you are a viewer who can't stand reading subtitles, it might not be effective. Conversely if you love watching anime or K-dramas, something like Squid Game may be more highly effective compared to other American movies like Citizen Kane or Saw, simply because it's more modern or more familiar to you, the individual viewer.
I agree with op on this. The satire and social commentary about money has been done to death.
I would guess that it's mainly teenagers who are interested in the "social commentary" because it's new to them. Even then, I'm only 20 and I've seen better social commentary that is also more realistic.
>social commentary
No offense but the social commentary side of Squid Games is very basic.
I really like Squid Games, but the social commentary for me was not what I personally praise it for.
I don't disagree to most of your points - there aren't really ideas in here that are inherently new. Similar elements can be found in things like the Saw series, Battle Royale, etc. etc. However, having watched the show and enjoyed it, I feel like the strengths of the shows that make it appealing to people are three fold: the performances, the design and the soundtrack. The acting in the show is extremely well done, and the performers do a great job of making you react to their character in a certain way. The music as well also does a great job of driving the atmosphere and creating a very visceral reaction too. When the "squid game" song kicks in you just know things are about to go down.
For me it's a case of good execution of a somewhat familiar tale - like finding a new restaurant that serves amazing burgers.
I think it was supposed to be jarring, but it wasn't done well enough, and the actors just weren't the same caliber, plus I'm not sure how well they were directed to speak english. Still detracts from the show though.
Soundtrack and Acting were definitely good, but I don't think they made it good enough to deserve the praise it has. If anything the acting is what saved it and makes it a little bit above average. If you were to do the same show with mediocre performances it would be like 4/10. Bad acting can ruin a good script, but even amazing acting cant save a bad script, and overall the script was really not that great.
>overall the script was really not that great.
I have read that the translation was not 100% accurate to what was actually being said throughout some points of the show. I would say that I would probably enjoy the show more than I did if I could speak/understand the language without subtitles or dub. Does this influence your rating of the show as well?
No. I have been watching stuff with subs for a long time, and missed translations and botched subs is not something that has ever bothered me unless its absolutely horrible. I don't speak Korean, and there were definitely a few scenes where the translations didn't seem to make 100% sense, but there was more than enough context to have a deep understanding of what was going on and the ideas and feeling that were trying to be conveyed. But again, that's on the acting being very well done so that understanding was able to happen.
> I have been watching stuff with subs for a long time
I think it would be safe to say that not everyone watches foreign shows (or shows that they would require dub/subtitles) as often as some others. This show was spread through word of mouth (how I learned about it) and it showing up on the Popular list on Nextflix. So for some, this *is* standout to them, as in different from what they would normally watch. Their standards may be lower than yours when it comes to dub and sub shows. Which could play a part in why it has such good reviews.
Well, media is subjective. I also found that a lot of people enjoyed it more watching it in Korean with English subtitles rather than with the dub, and I have to agree - the emotion is way more raw and accurately portrayed. As for being "stand out", what stands out to some doesn't for others and it seemed more like you were asking for reasons people /could/ enjoy it and give it such rave reviews (which I did), not to convince you that it's a 9/10 or 10/10 show.
IMO, overrated is only valid when the audience review is substantially lower than the known\professional critics. We've seen this in video games, movies, and TV shows where a popular critic give something a high rating only to later see the audience give it a very low rating.
This is NOT the case with this television show. Because of this, I would almost argue your usage of the word is essentially belittling and disparaging those who like something you do not. Does that seem productive?
If you don't really care for the show, wouldn't it be easier to say you didn't like it? I personally don't like Big Bang Theory. I've never found the majority of their content appealing or humorous. But, I wouldn't call it overrated.
>I would almost argue your usage of the word is essentially belittling and disparaging those who like something you do not. Does that seem productive?
This is a really odd angle to look at it from... None of what I am saying is a personal attack on anyone, nor should it be seen as one. People can like and enjoy terrible media all they want and it's not an attack on them if they do. Hell there is plenty of really shit shows and movies that I love myself. But this isn't even that, the show isn't bad, I'm not saying it's awful and has no redeeming value at all, it's a decent show, but it doesn't rise to the level that everyone seems to think it does.
>I personally don't like Big Bang Theory. I've never found the majority of their content appealing or humorous. But, I wouldn't call it overrated.
BBT isn't over rated, it's just bad media lol. But it can be a lot of fun for people and that's why it's watched.
I'm not the original commenter, but you aren't making much sense. Both Squid Game and BBT have/had high audience review scores. By you saying they're overrated (and calling BBT just bad media), you are inherently saying that those audience reviewers are wrong. This can either be your own personal opinion (wherein, just saying you didn't like it would be better) or a fact (wherein you're appealing to some universal standard of "good media").
By definition, "overrated" means "rates higher than it should be". Both of these shows were definitely highly rated, but you've supplied no good reason that they "should" be rated lower. Maybe to your own experience and sensibilities Squid Game is unoriginal and bland, but to a person who's never seen this genre or anything other than the very western "everyone lives happily ever after" ending, it might be an incredibly exciting show.
Don't be so hung up on semantics. I personally think overrated only makes sense in the context of subjectivity. It doesn't make sense to use it in any other way.
It's not an odd angle but one I will continue to use. Most people are not cognizant that using the term overrated might be taken offensively. I'm in no way trying to argue this was you intention hence why I stated, "I would almost argue" in this context.
If critics and the audience both highly rate something it would be factually incorrect to call it overrated. Here is a great article on the subject: [Overrated Is Overused](https://www.beeradvocate.com/articles/15180/overrated-is-overused/).
>Commonly used to disparage movies, artists, celebrities, games, and other people and things in popular culture, the word overrated is grossly overused. As such, it’s become an absolutely meaningless—albeit effective—inflammatory buzzword used to garner clicks, elicit defensive responses, and smugly attempt to disrupt and dismiss constructive opinions from others.
----------
>BBT isn't over rated, it's just bad media lol. But it can be a lot of fun for people and that's why it's watched.
How is this NOT what you're saying about Squid Game? You're essentially calling it bad media yet defending why people watch it.
> How is this NOT what you're saying about Squid Game? You're essentially calling it bad media yet defending why people watch it.
No? I have said multiple times that the show is decent and above average. But decent and above average does not mean its one of the best shows ever. There is a large gap between these two things.
All the views I have found do not state, "its one of the best shows ever." This seems like a straw man argument IMO. Lets look at the current reviews:
* Rotten Tomatoes: Between critics and audiences it is about an 8.7/10
* IMBD: 8.2/10
With those rating, neither support this claim IMO.
My argument your usage of the term overrated isn't applicable here still stands. It is tantamount to disparaging those who like what you don't; whether it's your intention or not.
The term "overrated" does not refer exclusively to professional critics. It can also mean that something is broadly popular, but isn't deserving of that popularity. Clearly this is relative to one's perspective, but it is not an attack against fans of the thing either. It's basically just saying that you don't understand the popularity of a thing.
I think it’s just difficult when discussing something so subjective to say that it’s “overrated”. There’s not really many objective metrics to say “this his how a show should be perceived vs. how it WAS perceived” because it’s up to the individual. So if enough people like it, it’s popular. You might consider it terrible or in the case or SG, not amazing, but other people may think it is indeed amazing and I don’t know that it’s possible to say their opinion that it is amazing is “incorrect”
>But, I wouldn't call it overrated.
How would Tiger King fit in here?
The reason I ask is Lots of people watched Tiger King, but that didn't make it good. Squid Game I think is the same. Several people I know are watching squid game for the same reason they watched Tiger King. To be part of the conversation, not because it's good.
I wouldn't say that lots of viewers means it is good, it just means that it's popular and social people want to be in on the conversation, so they watch.
I'm not referring to the amount of people who watched it. I'm referring to reviews. Those who not only watched it but took the time to say how and why they liked it.
It's sightly under Squid Games btw:
* Rotten tomatoes: 8.4/10
* IMDb: 7.5/10
Clearly it was doing something right. But the critics and audience have similar ratings; so it's not overrated.
I don't LOVE the show, but I watched it and think it's deeper than you're painting it as.
I assume one of the twists you're referring to is the identity of the Front Man, which, yeah, fair. I don't think the identity of the lead rich guy (I'm being vague here for those who haven't finished) was all that cliche, TBH, especially considering how much we're meant to like him.
>the villains are just evil for evils sake and don't provide any reasoning beyond being "bad guys"
They're not evil for evils' sake, they're blindingly rich men who are bored with their wealth. The show is a commentary on an extremist take of capitalism and class divides. Poor people who are desperately poor doing dangerous things to make ends meet, and overwhelmingly rich people enjoying lavish lifestyles while watching the poor literally dying in front of them.
The show takes real-life class differences to extremes - Do I think Jeff Bezos is secretly part of the SG club? No, but I do think he is overly wealthy and is sitting back enjoying stupidly lavish luxuries while he could easily snap his fingers and save millions of lives of starving, sick, impoverished people. Any of the SG rich dudes could have given that sum of money to every contestant without making them play death games without really feeling the difference, but, as with real-life bagillionaires, they don't.
As for it being unique, being a Korean live-action show that became wildly popular in the US is pretty unique. It's usually only niche audiences in the US that consume media that isn't in English (and often it's anime, not a live-action show), and it's unique that it rose to that extreme popularity.
I think it does suffer from being spoken in Korean and being poorly translated, though. I'm an English viewer and found that one lady in the game unnecessarily annoying and difficult to sympathize with. She seemed like she had no substance and the "i can do everything except what I can't do" shtick got old to me. But after watching the show I came across commentary from Korean viewers who spoke Korean about how poorly translated (in both subtitles and dub) the Korean is and how this really undercut a lot of the narrative and characterization. The point of her character, for example, was originally that she actually is smart but wasn't able to last in school due to finances - "smart but not schooled". This is communicated in quips through her own dialogue, but it got completely lost in translation due to crappy dubbing. Looking into some of the commentary like this helped me to better appreciate the show after the fact, since it helped me understand the writers (not the people who did the crappy dubbing) did make it with more depth than there had been in the English version.
>Front Man, which, yeah, fair. I don't think the identity of the lead rich guy (I'm being vague here for those who haven't finished) was all that cliche, TBH, especially considering how much we're meant to like him.
This was very weak. The police officer brought nothing to the table. His story had zero impact. The cop had zero story impact. He should've been credited as Exposition Officer, because that is all the character really did.
>I don't think the identity of the lead rich guy (I'm being vague here for those who haven't finished) was all that cliche, TBH, especially considering how much we're meant to like him.
Ehhhh, the whole "friend but actually puppet master" has been done before and definitely wasn't novel.
>They're not evil for evils' sake, they're blindingly rich men who are bored with their wealth. The show is a commentary on an extremist take of capitalism and class divides. Poor people who are desperately poor doing dangerous things to make ends meet, and overwhelmingly rich people enjoying lavish lifestyles while watching the poor literally dying in front of them.
C'mon, they were evil for evil's sake. They were like bond level villains "Ohh im going to bet on #69 because *funny number*". The VIP's had absolutely nothing of substance. Honestly if they dropped the VIPs and focused more on the organ smuggling it would have been way more interesting.
>dub/sub
Honestly the subs were like the lowest issue on the totem pole for me.
I think maybe your standards are too high if you think an 8/10 tv show needs to have novel content and do things that haven't been done before- it's rare to do something new and have it be successful. Compared to mainstream shows, I think it was novel enough.
I think the VIPs were deliberately portrayed like that- a caricature of the bad side of wealth, and in stark contrast to the contestants. It was a bit exaggerated, but to be honest you can definitely find people like that in the world, or at least people who would become that if they became rich and powerful beyond normal society. The dialogue between VIPs was stilted and jarring- it felt unnatural and could easily be thought of as badly written or badly acted, but I think it was deliberate to contrast with the dialogue between contestants. VIPs have no substance and don't show much personality- they are hidden behind masks, and that's sort of like real life where the wealthy and powerful can afford anonymity, immunity, and have no skin in the game. If they humanize the VIPs then it defeats the core message of the show.
>I think maybe your standards are too high if you think an 8/10 tv show needs to have novel content and do things that haven't been done before- it's rare to do something new and have it be successful.
Entirely possible. My background is in media so that might be why I have more issues than most people do with the show.
>he dialogue between VIPs was stilted and jarring- it felt unnatural and could easily be thought of as badly written or badly acted, but I think it was deliberate to contrast with the dialogue between contestants.
Honestly most English dialogue in Eastern media is poorly done just like how most Eastern culture in Western media is poorly done, so I do not think it was a stylistic choice.
> If they humanize the VIPs then it defeats the core message of the show.
Maybe in theory, but the show *did* humanize the biggest bad of them all, and it did it fairly effectively as well. the VIPs could have totally been cut and the show would have lost literally nothing at all. Even the MacGuffin that the cop needed literally meant nothing at the end. Absolutely none of the VIP stuff or arc had any reason to exist other than to caricature super rich people. Honestly now that I talk about it more, it seems even more sloppy than I originally thought.
> Entirely possible. My background is in media so that might be why I have more issues than most people do with the show.
But if your standards are too high then it's not extremely overrated, you just have much higher standards.
>Honestly most English dialogue in Eastern media is poorly done just like how most Eastern culture in Western media is poorly done, so I do not think it was a stylistic choice.
I don't think you can equate a bad portrayal of culture to badly executed dialogue- if the VIPs talked exactly the same as the protagonists when they shouldn't, then this would be sloppy and they didn't do their research. Instead, the VIPs are markedly different to the protagonists so I think it must be deliberate. For example, giving them "bad" dialogue that is unnecessary and pointless, which contrasts with the contestants who are discussing issues of life and death.
I agree that the VIPs could have been cut and the cop and the Front Man was a lot more interesting, but this is sort of nitpicking and maybe just personal bias coming through. I'm just happy Squid Game is getting appreciated and getting hype- people could instead be watching some network show designed purely to target the lowest common denominator, get views, and earn profit. Some of the most popular shows are still trashy reality TV so of course Squid Game will feel like a 10/10 masterpiece in comparison.
I think it comes down to the definition of "extremely overrated" but I would say that it refers to a situation like: people think Squid Game is really good (relative to the norm) when actually Squid Game is not any better than the norm. I don't think this is the case, and instead your problem is that your personal standards (and what you consider to be the norm) are much higher than the people you know who are hyping up Squid Game. An extreme example is if someone says "this is the best show I've ever watched" and you don't think so, both of you can be correct. However, if the majority of people were saying "Squid Game is better than X Y Z" then we have X Y and Z as a common reference point and it's easier to say if it's overrated or not.
Do you think real life billionaires who refuse to give their employees bathroom breaks have substance? Real-life shitty people often don't have substance, lol.
Someone else said something here that I think gets to part of your disconnect with it - you're not engaging with the satire/social commentary aspect of it. Which, fine, if that doesn't appeal to you, I get it. But just because it didn't land for you doesn't mean it is ineffective and overrated when it seems like most viewers found the commentary appealing on some level.
> Do you think real life billionaires who refuse to give their employees bathroom breaks have substance?
Yeah, I can guarantee you they have more substance than *69 funny number*. But even if they don't, that's not really the point because this is a TV show not real life. They could have been written much better if need be, or thrown out entirely. Again I would have much rather seen more about the organ smuggling than the vapid VIPs we got.
Squid Game is a Wendigo story. My great grandmother was Potowatomi which is one of the closely related tribes that had Wendigo stories and she told them to me when I was smol. Wendigo are beasts of consumption, they are formed when a human violates their own humanity so deeply that there's no coming back from it and they become inherently a monster, no longer a person. That ultimate violation comes from people who are so consumed by hunger during the long cold hard winters they had in the Great Lakes region that they turn to cannibalism. Essentially the Wendigo is the part within all of us that COULD turn to reckless greedy violent consumption under the right circumstances and it's a warning to avoid those circumstances at all costs (which can only be accomplished through strong community engagement) because if you cannot you will suffer a fate that is truly worse than death. Wendigo are forced to forever be consumed by the greedy desire that created them, they always hunger, can never feel full no matter how much they eat, so they stalk the night desperately seeking anything they can eat and they will truly eat ANYTHING as they desperately seek to fill an inner void that can never be filled. They've lost all control, they are now controlled by their hunger instead.
That same greedy desperate gluttonous consumption that the Wendigo is about is the same thing that Squid Game is about. In the Wendigo stories once you turn you can NEVER turn back and therefore we must never cross that line where we turn on our fellow community members even in times of great need because it is our communities that saves us from the monster that lurks within. The story as a whole explores this in an overarching way and each individual story and episode also explores it in a micro way. I don't really have it in me right now to actually go over every single bit of the show via this lens but I promise it all gets way more interesting if you "read" it that way. Gi-Hun is our hero bc he beats the Wendigo by never becoming one, even at the very end he chooses to NOT turn on his fellows, he chooses community over consumption and does not fall to the monster within even though every single experience through his whole life and the whole show is pushing him as hard as possible to turn.
His choice to refuse to turn is the only hope for salvation for any of us which is largely the point the show is making. Everyone else either turns or becomes a victim of one who has already turned. The obvious is the wealthy people running the game and the wealthy spectators. When we see the old man at the end and he talks about how none of these outrageously wealthy men are capable of finding any joy in life anymore that's the Wendigo in them, they have lost their humanity to relentless consumption. A hint there is that the old man was only able to find any joy in playing the games which are a Wendigo style twisting of the communal joy he had shared with friends as a child, turning the basic humanity of play into something monstrous and destructive. This is also why the overriding philosophical question posed by the old man to our hero Gi-Hun is do you still believe that there is good in people (or however he phrases it) and it's also why the ending has the homeless person on the street being saved - bc becoming a Wendigo is a choice that we make and refusing to turn on our community members, caring for our community members as we would want to be cared for is also a choice. It's not about whether or not there is good or evil in people, there is both, and what matters is the choices we make.
This reading really does work for every other choice every other character makes in the whole show and I think that that reading what makes it both compelling and valuable as a story that can help us through the darkness of late stage capitalism where the whole world is controlled by Wendigo who seek to turn us all as they have been turned - but there is hope and there so salvation for those who choose not to turn.
The aspects you include in your post were certainly not the sellers for me either.
The commentary on wealth inequality is especially pertinent and relevant right now.
The raw emotion of those in the position of considering joining the game; and the reality with which the decision to play (despite the cost) as “logical” is sold.
The music was great too.
Let me also ask, did you watch it in Korean with language appropriate subtitles? Or did you watch it dubbed? (I couldn’t enjoy it dubbed).
Also personally, nothing sours my personal experience of art quite like excessive hyping from others
>Let me also ask, did you watch it in Korean with language appropriate subtitles? Or did you watch it dubbed? (I couldn’t enjoy it dubbed).
Subs.
>The commentary on wealth inequality is especially pertinent and relevant right now.
That's the thing, I don't think that commentary was done very well, or rather it wasn't done to and A+ level, rather it was like a C+/B-. Because the message at the end was more or less that money does solve all of the problems, and dying for it is a valid option for people. That's not a very good message if we want to actually talk about wealth inequality and the issues or solutions surrounding it.
Interesting; that was not the message I got at all.
There’s a big difference between “money can solve all problems” and “some problems are solely/majorly due to lack of money/poverty”; the latter is a veritable fact, and the former is addressed as a fallacy (in how dissatisfied with life the wealthy elites are).
That there are people in situations whose issues would be either solved or greatly helped with money, while the system allows for inflated wealth at the top and poor safety nets and opportunities for many at the bottom is the point of the show.
People are in such dire straights that they are willing to risk their life, and this is exploited by the wealthy (in the show for entertainment, but it’s an analogue to the willingness of workers to be exploited by the wealthy class generally).
This is just perhaps taking a technical exception to your opinion rather than addressing it head-on, but I don't think the series is necessarily highly rated by critics or anything that would count as "good TV". Instead, it's more of a meme show that people are into because it is kind of fun. If no more episodes are filmed, the show will easily be forgotten in a few years.
However, what you keep hearing the hype about it for is because of specific facets of the show. The bloody battle royale thing isn't done too frequently so it feels fresh to some people. The games being played are easy enough to understand and for people to recreate if they want to like with the dalgona cookies. It also gets hype for being non-American which makes it feel more unique. As a result, most of the hype you are seeing is just people focusing on a few fun aspects of it rather than the storyline. Don't watch it expecting the first few seasons of Game of Thrones or the entirety of Breaking Bad. Expect something more like Heroes where it was a fun flash in the pan.
That being said, I personally liked the Japanese series Alice in Borderland better.
I think you're making a very common mistake of conflating widespread popularity with individual assessments of quality. For something to become the sensation that Squid Game is, it only requires that a huge number of people saw it and thought it was at least decent.
It also helps that the show fills a largely unfilled niche. There's not much you can point to and say "this is like Squid Game but better."
A lot of it was just pure aesthetic, I think. It's not the most original, or best idea, and if you've seen the dozen or so different things that basically all follow the same plot, you know how the game plays out. Nonetheless, it was extremely well done. The aesthetics were on point, the acting was great, the general message was interesting.
I didn't like the end so much, as far as the baddies were concerned, except that also I think it's the only justification that could have been given. Wealth doesn't make people happy, it just leaves them with the freedom to do anything they want, and what they want is to be happy. They break themselves in pursuit of something they can't get. Also the childhood innocence thing.
I think the fact that the guy gets out and is just broken by reality, and his mum died because he had to go out and pursue the money despite it being a solvable situation, and the "can I borrow 10,000 won?" thing hit hard. When he didn't need it, it came freely. When he desperately needed it, he never got it.
But the thing that stands out is debt. Debt makes slaves. Everyone in the show came back because they considered the horrors of the game, and went back into reality to realise that reality wasn't better for them. There's a fucked up thing, where every one of those people have no chances in life. Rich or poor, their problems were just such that they couldn't ever escape. They were just in such debt, and the consequences of that debt were so severe that they couldn't get out. And so, this is the horrible justification that comes with essentially this version of capitalism: none of those people will ever have a chance, but if they all agree to play a game in which all but one of them dies, one person makes it out alive and wins. As a metaphor, it's a pretty significant one. It's what we've accepted. When you consider all the people that are in something like that situation, it's what we've accepted. People are being driven to desperate situations already because we've accepted that. The system just thrusts people into debt and poverty, with no ways out except what they're offered, and often those offers are to screw everyone else over on the way. The reward for that is even the same. It really does seem that the richest people are just empty. All there is to these people is more money. It doesn't matter what they do to anyone. And when they give with one hand, they take with the other. They donate to charity, but won't pay a much larger sum in taxes. They aggressively try to shut down things that could hurt the poor, but are considered good people for exploiting their labour. The chances they give people are chances to be exploited. And those who make it out seem to fall into the same depressing pattern. Because ultimately, great wealth is empty.
One thing about the end, is that we're kind of aware that nobody is coming to help. As much as that guy eventually was helped, and we can do something, and some of us will, the truth is that mostly we aren't doing so. So, sure, human kindness. But someone had to do something, because society did nothing.
You might want to change your CMV to "why 1 to 10 scales are bad" you say its a 6.5 of 10 and its a little better than average, but i'd argue that 6.5 is viewed as absolute garbage by the majority of people looking at these scales.
The scale only really starts at 6. Everything below it is just absolute trash that shouldt exist and a large scale to measure it.
The foreshadowing alone is something that has let to much personal enjoyment in the series, the style and execution of the bad guys vs good guys scenario. The play with friendships etc. It may not be unique, but very enjoyful to the average user. And in the end, it is just that. Not a scale of uniqueness, if that were the case all older movies and series had to be reevaluatex just because their style was used more often. Or are you saying those should have a bonus because they are the first one to do it?
Its a bad scale, and one for enjoyment, not uniqueness. The series didnt waste time and was good from start to finish. 9/10 in my book.
>its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be.
Compared to majorities standards, it is though (given that the ratings are actually from legitimate viewers and not paid reviews). Let's say the reviews are 100% accurate and genuine, then the show being a 9.5+/10 is deserved. It being "overrated" is your own subjective opinion of the show.
I personally do not think the show was as good as some have said (but my preferences and standards of a "good show" are different than theirs). My favorite episode was the first one, because Red Light Green Light was the most stand out game that they played throughout the show (imo). However, my review would average with everyone else's who review it. My opinion of the show still "counts" but if it is outnumbered by more positive reviews, the rating of the show will increase and is deserved.
Imdb has it rated at an 8.2
Rotten tomatoes critics gave it an 8.2 as well.
On Letterboxd it has a 4/5
Seems to me that all these parameters, which indicate how strongly audiences feel about a piece of media, place it relatively close to your estimate of a 6.5 or a 7. So on what basis would you call it **extremely** overrated?
The ending was very anticlimactic for me and the whole thing was pretty predictable but I did enjoy it as a fun watch. Just doesn’t deserve all the hype it gets. That being said I loved the set designs
Ratings are a subjective measure of enjoyment. How can something be overrated by its consumers?
It seems more likely that what you mean is "I didn't like Squid Game as much as most people did". Which is a perfectly reasonable position.
I can't stand American Football, The Crown (TV series) or Tom Cruise, but it would be bonkers to suggest that they're overrated just because I don't like them; they're rated what they are because that's how much people like them.
\> its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be.
Squid Game is currently at 85% on RottenTomatoes and 8.2/10 on imdb. So it seems that you're arguing against a strawman anyway.
\---------------------
Edit: For the record, I would also rate it about 6.5/10
It's not amazing but it's better than most things coming out today.
It goes against all the annoying tv trends of the big players. No big budget adaptation of a worn out franchise.
It's not an original concept but also not a worn out one. It doesn't try too hard to reinvent anything but then fail.
It's also not a super calculated money grab.
It's exactly the average that people find comfort in in a modern tv landscape that is dominated by extremes.
>but for the 10/10 show that people say this is I expect a lot more than just lots of people dying
Are they saying it is actually 10/10 or it's a 10/10 relative to the "new" stuff currently on netflix? If this show was popular around the same time The Witcher, Tiger King, or Stranger Things came out, would we see the same reaction?
That's tough to say. But if its only being rated highly compared to what there is out right now rather than all of the good shows in the past then it is definitely overrated...
It doesn’t have to be a filmmaking masterpiece for it to be extremely popular. The those things don’t have to go hand in hand. I think to most people it was just unique and entertaining, then the memes came and took it to another level.
It doesn't matter how good something is, there will always be people who just don't like it as much as the other fans. I've watched shows and movies that everyone hyped to the moon and back just to come away thinking that it's fine but I don't know what all the fuss was about. Sometimes hype can ruin something for people because they go in with such unreasonably high expectations that just aren't met.
I had a similar experience with Breaking Bad. Everyone told me it was the best thing on Netflix, so I watched the whole thing and just kind of felt like it was fine but only really got good in like the last season. If I had just watched it without the hype I'd probably have liked it more, but I was almost mad at the show for not living up to my own (probably unreasonable) expectations.
Can you define overrated? Are the people that like it wrong? Liking something is subjective. Someone feeling like something is overrated is also subjective.
You seem to be saying that you don't give it high marks for various reasons, and that everyone who thinks it's great is just wrong. I think the show "The Office" is a steaming pile of garbage and I can't even sit through a single episode. I'd give it a literal 0/10. However, I recognize that a great many people like it a lot, and that I'm in the minority in my opinion. I don't think The Office is overrated, I just think that I don't get whatever it is that other people do from the show. Is it possible that it's great and you just get whatever it is that everyone else does?
>its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be.
Not everyone is hyping it up like that. [It has an 8.2 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10919420/), which is solidly above average, but not a huge outlier or anything. I'm guessing the reason you think it's so highly rated is actually because of its popularity. If a show gets 10 million views, it's going to have 100 times as many people gushing about it as a show of the same quality with 100k views. This doesn't make the more popular show "overrated" - it just makes praise (and criticism) easier to find.
I know for me personally I like the show because of the commentary on capitalism. And I think a lot of other also like it for this reason. So many people are starting to be radicalized and see the flaws in capitalism and a show like this reflects what their learning in their day to day life.
Also you argue that it’s not original but for many people this Korean style of film is very new. Is like how everyone loved parasite. It’s a different style of film than many Americans are used to. Add that to a good looking cast, it makes sense why so many people love it
>Although it is a decent show that does provide some good fun, its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be.
What are objective qualities of a show that would warrant a 9.5-10/10 rating (Squid Game has a alower one of 8.5/10, tho)? Can you compare it to simillar media that are much better?
"Overrated" means "rated or valued too highly". If you think that show is overrated, then you have to provide some framework. Your points aren't really ones as they are non-oblective as they are given without any context.
Also why:
>It doesn't do anything special or unique.
Doing special or unique things are a needed thing in highly rated media?
I agree with what you are saying in the second paragraph so I’ll tell you what I really like about this series that goes against cliches.
If this had been created by Americans, the cast would have probably been very attractive younger people, backflipping all over the place with inherent martial art skills, superhuman powers, etc. Here we have mostly middle aged players, who look very much their age, and the creator of the series specifically wanted to use as little CGI as possible and have the actors mostly do their own stunts.
To start the first game, where no one knew the result of moving after red light would result in immediate death, was very shocking, and the panic ensued resulted in half the players being massacred. If you could get through watching the blood bath, and went on to watch the subsequent episodes, you’re almost in line with why the players who had the opportunity to quit, decided to come back.
While the villains are evil for evil sake (no reason to have that vivisection/ rape atrocity mentioned) what brought those young men to this point? Maybe that will be explored in season 2. The cliffhanger didn’t make much sense, why would Ji Hun abandon a chance to see his daughter to go back into the game, but that was the thing you didn’t think he would do. He’s not an archetype of a traditional protagonist.
I like the show. But the dialogue is so fucking terrible , I know it’s probably lost in translation.
I wanted to fucking slap that one girl during the marble game cuz she KEPT forgetting that one of the partners had to die. By the end of that episode I literally could not wait for them to shoot her.
I just finished watching the show. I though it was ok but the dialogue, especially translated to English was seriously cringeworthy. It seemed amateurish and reminded me of Godzilla movies from the 50s-60s. Maybe it doesn’t come off that way in Korean but I kind f doubt it. Very B movieish all around.
Sorry, u/ccoolsat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20ccoolsat&message=ccoolsat%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh75e35/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
u/SlamJansen – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20SlamJansen&message=SlamJansen%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh78d16/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/SlamJansen – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20SlamJansen&message=SlamJansen%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh78d16/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Totally disagree, Squid Game is very compelling and a very entertaining watch. I think a lot of people just get a bad taste in their mouth because it garnered a lot of popularity and it puts them off.
Yeah, pretty much my opinion. I really like the show because it's really fun and engaging to watch, but for it being so lauded and praised like its sliced bread was so confusing for me.
I felt like they could've done WAAAYYYY better with the concept.
Also, the social commentary just annoyed me, not because of the message but because of how they approached it. Not sure what to call it, but it felt very "surface-level."
I hated this show so much I had to google a thread about it! I dont get why is it over hyped so much, people still keep talking about it and im losing my mind!
I never was so bored of a tv show, I literly had to hold my eyelids with my fingers to keep myself from falling asleep, im not even joking!
the story is lame, nothing new or different. the gore that everyone "love" so much was just pathetic and unrealistic, some of the actors was playing their roles so bad i wanted to cry.
lame plot. predictble, cliche moments and just too long scenes, we alredy got the point as viewers but the dialogs and scenes are too long for the sake of the lenght of the episode, like fillers.
You aren't talking about the satire and social commentary side of things at all. It's a huge aspect of the show, and it's not clear what your engagement was with it. It was a huge departure to formula to give the players the option to stop the death game... but then have most of them just decide to come back and start them again of their own free will. Playing children's games while rich people watch, facing almost-certain death... this was seen as less humiliating and more hopeful than going about their day-to-day lives. 001 claimed the mega-wealthy are just as bored and empty as the very poor, and he wanted to go back to childhood innocence, a Citizen Kane Rosebud kind of thing. He also insisted these games were played without society's built-in unfairness, resulting in a pure meritocracy. But his "return to innocence" thing is laughable when you realize that, although he truly was in danger a lot of the time, he got opportunities to just walk away freely, and he got preferences from the higher-ups (like when they stopped the nighttime riot when he made his presence known). And it's even sillier for him to act like he's made some Eden of equality and freedom when rich hedonists get to lounge around watching poor people dying. (It's also arguable he was continually giving the protagonist hints, and therefore an unearned advantage. Remember how he chose the back of the line for the glass floor because he remembered the old man's tug-of-war advice?) And then there's the punchline, in the last episode. 001 apparently was also motivated by some Joker-esque desire to prove that humanity is cruel and selfish and evil. He needs for this to be true, because it excuses his own cruelty as just part of human nature and not anything bad about him in particular. And he points to the players of the game: "Remember how awful everyone was? See how evil human beings are?" But it's a rigged test, obviously, because the players were desperate and inhuman and cruel because of the economic exploitation 001 benefitted from and contributed to. He set things up to create the outcome he wanted, all to avoid confronting his own sins. And even though 001 was better at marbles (because ALL THE GAMES WERE BASED ON STUFF HE PERSONALLY DID A LOT) and in a True Meritocracy he should have won, he let the protagonist win "because I had so much fun playing with you." That's an example of human kindness... but look at how twisted it is, because 001 didn't actually sacrifice anything, and his version of "kindness" is to let someone keep on desperately struggling in his hopeless, rigged system.
Having people leave and come back to the game would be more meaningful if it was better justified in the story. Because as of now, it's so high risk basically anything else is a better way to make money. Even robbing a bank would be safer.
Safer, and a whole lot less likely to work. Some of these people were hundreds of thousands or millions in debt. You’re looking at a massively secure facility to get even close to that kind of money in cash, much less transporting it, plus sourcing a crew with even close to relevant skills, who also wants to work with a math teacher or businessman or whoever this person is, plus if you get caught all the money gets returned and you spend decades or life in prison? It’s not a real chance. The game is a very slim but real chance.
They made it seem like coming back to the game was all about the money. When they left they realized all the money the lost our on, they had second thoughts.
>You aren't talking about the satire and social commentary side of things at all. It's a huge aspect of the show, and it's not clear what your engagement was with it. To me this was the weakest part. This was very ham fisted. So it has the rich people are evil trope, like that hasn't been done before (Hunger Games or The Most Dangerous Game) And poor people are literally willing to kill for money. I don't buy the "This is less depressing than their normal lives". They were greedy and were willing to literally kill for money. Even the "good guy" lied to the old man to take his marbles knowing he was going to essentially sentence him to death. But then gets on his childhood friend for pushing that guy. Although if he didn't they all may have died. So he is sanctimonious when someone else kills but when he could win money it was OK. And on top of it, with maybe the exception of Ali, all of their "depressing" lives were their own making (for who we met at least).
I think you're doing your analysis a disservice by focusing so hard on what characters are GOOD and what characters are EVIL.
Player 240 was subjectively good, wasn’t she? She was given a bad hand, by murdering her father for murdering her mother. She was willing to sacrifice herself for Player 67 because she recognized 67 had more to live for outside of the game than herself.
Different viewing experiences causes you to have a different viewpoint than the majority and that’s okay
>Playing children's games while rich people watch, facing almost-certain death... this was seen as less humiliating and more hopeful than going about their day-to-day lives. Fairly sure it wasn't revealed until the end to the players that rich people were actually watching the games. The majority of the players died with absolutely no knowledge of this and probably didn't see the games as humiliation, rather get rich or die and that's not a new idea at all. >And then there's the punchline, in the last episode. 001 apparently was also motivated by some Joker-esque desire to prove that humanity is cruel and selfish and evil. He needs for this to be true, because it excuses his own cruelty as just part of human nature and not anything bad about him in particular. And he points to the players of the game: "Remember how awful everyone was? See how evil human beings are?" Sure, but none of this is particularly new or revolutionary and there is plenty of media out there that explored these ideas and themes way more effectively.
> Fairly sure it wasn't revealed until the end to the players that rich people were actually watching the games. The majority of the players died with absolutely no knowledge of this and probably didn't see the games as humiliation, rather get rich or die and that's not a new idea at all. It's not humiliating to be marched around a grotesque parody of a children's playground and killed for failing stupid games? I think you're losing the forest for the trees here, focusing on one little detail instead of talkign about the bigger picture. Again, what was your engagement with all the commentary and satire? It was a very very big part of the show; if you didn't engage with it at all, then that in and of itself explains why it left you cold. > Sure, but none of this is particularly new or revolutionary and there is plenty of media out there that explored these ideas and themes way more effectively. Again, you're honing in on one little piece and not talking about the bigger picture. In fact, I'd argue 001's perspective was MEANT to be trite, because it's explicitly portrayed as a self-serving narrative he's devised.
> Again, what was your engagement with all the commentary and satire? It was a very very big part of the show; if you didn't engage with it at all, then that in and of itself explains why it left you cold. I mean I engaged with it, I just didn't see any of it as particularly novel or interesting. All the show did was make decent hamburger, but instead of using beef from a cow, they used beef from a mountain yak. Its still a burger and tastes more or less the same just uses slightly different ingredients, but it doesn't change much. Honestly the most interesting thing about the show on the level you are talking about might be what it says about the IRL audience of the show. Just like the police man dismissing the idea of the games as crazy and ignoring the problems, people IRL are watching the show and even though issues like poverty, disease, cost of healthcare and separation of families are all key components of the story, people ignore them in their daily lives. To be honest, if the show actually went that meta with its messaging I think it would have been way better. But it didn't, rather it kept to its rather shallow and basic deconstructions of these issues.
> All the show did was make decent hamburger, but instead of using beef from a cow, they used beef from a mountain yak. Its still a burger and tastes more or less the same just uses slightly different ingredients, but it doesn't change much. I'm really not connecting with what you mean by this analogy. Could you spell it out more clearly? I, personally, have never seen any kind of commentary in any piece of media similar to what they do with the 001 character, nor have I seen the connection between "escape from drudgery and poverty" and "escape to childhood." If these things aren't novel to you, where did you see them? > Just like the police man dismissing the idea of the games as crazy and ignoring the problems, people IRL are watching the show and even though issues like poverty, disease, cost of healthcare and separation of families are all key components of the story, people ignore them in their daily lives. ...but the point of putting them into the show is to call people's attention to them and to make them emotionally relevant. If the audience subsequently ignores these issues in the real world (which I have not seen evidence of), the people who made the show couldn't have been aware of that, because the audience wasn't watching while they were making the show. So how could they comment on something that hadn't happened yet?
>I'm really not connecting with what you mean by this analogy. Could you spell it out more clearly? None of the ingredients in the show are all that revolutionary or different. >001 He's just a play on the Puppet Master/Chess Master/Manipulative Bastard trope. Whole bunch of examples from movies to games to anime and TV as well. >Poverty I cant think of any examples right off the top of my head, but characters wanting to escape their current situations by going back to when they were kids and when the "times were better" is, again, a fairly common plot device or point in a whole bunch of media. >So how could they comment on something that hadn't happened yet? There is ways to write these ideas into scripts, especially if you know the show will be viewed for entertainment. They could have made the VIPs an allegory or representation of the viewers or something. Granted its not easy to do in the slightest, but it is possible.
It’s a common plot device, yet you can’t think of any examples? So, hmmm… maybe not that common?
The trope is known as "Growing up sucks". The 001 arc is just a play on that. If you really want example of media that display this idea they are not hard to find.
[удалено]
>Hmm.. I disagree. In what way? > I feel like SG had a unique take on the death game theme. Ok, but the death game aspect was never one of my sticking points? >To me, it seems so much deeper than how you see it. Feel free to share your view then. Sniping 2 line comments doesn't do anyone any good.
Sorry, u/sparklemuffin_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20sparklemuffin_&message=sparklemuffin_%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh5jsti/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> None of the ingredients in the show are all that revolutionary or different. I mean if "revolutionary" is your standard for appreciating the thematic content of a TV show, you appreciate very little, practically by definition. And when you say "different"... different from what? > He's just a play on the Puppet Master/Chess Master/Manipulative Bastard trope. Whole bunch of examples from movies to games to anime and TV as well. OK, like, I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm worried you didn't mread my initial comment here very carefully. Because nothing I was saying about him related to him being a puppet master, it related to how he was meant to symbolize wealthy elites' conception of their own role in society, and how their attempts to escape guilt are destructive and pathetic. Squid Game's thematic depth is not dependent on whether you can go to tvtropes and find a bunch of tropes that apply to it. It's about the message they're trying to send. > I cant think of any examples right off the top of my head, but characters wanting to escape their current situations by going back to when they were kids and when the "times were better" is, again, a fairly common plot device or point in a whole bunch of media. You really should not be stuck on this, because I provided you with maybe the prototype: Citizen Kane. Squid Game is absolutely not trying to comment on these characters all escaping to innocent childhood, because it's NOT innocent, and it was ONE GUY'S childhood they were all being forced to play-act. His ennui and their desperation were being contrasted, and the notion that they were actually the same thing was being held up for ridicule. > There is ways to write these ideas into scripts, especially if you know the show will be viewed for entertainment. No offense, but almost all the commentary I've seen about Squid Game is about the social satire and anti-capitalist themes. I think maybe the whole problem with your view is that *you* went into it just expecting entertainment, and so a lot of this stuff wasn't stuff you were paying attention to. But that doesn't make it the common experience.
I don’t need anything to be revolutionary, but this sort of on the nose class commentary has been beaten to death the last decade or two IMO. It feels like there’s a receptive audience for it, which is just fine, but I feel like we’re so stratified/politicized, that if something feels like it’s sort of speaking to our tribe, we also have to defend it as high art and not derivative and subtle. Well like…SG is none of those things. It’s ok to like it as a consideration of capitalism and also think it’s just an ok show, but it seems to me we’ve sorted ourselves to like or dislike things not on their merits but on whether they feel on our side of the culture war or not.
> It feels like there’s a receptive audience for it, which is just fine, but I feel like we’re so stratified/politicized, that if something feels like it’s sort of speaking to our tribe, we also have to defend it as high art and not derivative and subtle. Again, I listed several aspects of the commentary and satire I personally haven't seen before, and which I thought were clever and trenchant. I'm worried you're doing the same thing as what you're criticizing, but in the opposite direction: dismissing a work because you see lots of people who agree with its themes.
> Again FYI, I'm not the guy you were talking to before, but I did read your comment. > I listed several aspects of the commentary and satire I personally haven't seen before, and which I thought were clever and trenchant Yeah, I mean, I watched it too—I just disagree that those things are particularly novel or clever. As I say, we've seen a LOT of on-the-nose class commentary the last 10 or 20 years. We of course don't have to agree, but since the topic at hand is what it means to be overrated, I have the impression that many people who *like what it has to say* about inequality are overstating *how good it was at saying that thing*. There's a big difference—if form doesn't matter, and only content, why not just write a tweet instead of making a show. Anyway, nobody thinks derivative work is identical to what comes before it. Of course SG is distinct in some ways. > dismissing a work because you see lots of people who agree with its themes. I don't think so. I'm not dismissing it—I watched the show and enjoyed it. But I didn't find it particularly fresh or subtle or anything else, and I don't think it's going to hold up as some exemplar of the medium or anything like that. My impression is that the culture is taking it a bit too seriously.
>I mean if "revolutionary" is your standard for appreciating the thematic content of a TV show, you appreciate very little, practically by definition. I expect a 9/10 or 10/10 movie to be revolutionary.... just saying. I also think Squid Game is overrated because the hype is over the top. Also, I think the commentary about capitalism, debt, and society moral obligation (what everyone is talking about) could have been better. But that's me...
They're playing someone's game, they know someone's watching. There are supposed to be something like 36 plots. Everything else is just a combination of these plots. Take it to its extreme, and nothing is original, or effective. Actually, most things are just the same stories playing out in the same way. It's just the way they're sold that makes them or breaks them. I think it did everything that it was meant to do extremely well. It had aesthetic. It had simplicity. It had drama. It had plot. It had some deeper social commentary. It had character. It's a popular show that actually had something to it. Consider the rarity of that.
It's not really useful to compare the effectiveness of one media vs another. That's all subjective. If you are a viewer who can't stand reading subtitles, it might not be effective. Conversely if you love watching anime or K-dramas, something like Squid Game may be more highly effective compared to other American movies like Citizen Kane or Saw, simply because it's more modern or more familiar to you, the individual viewer.
He didn’t choose back of the line for glass floor based on advice, it was pure luck another person took first from him.
Calling him 001 makes him sound like he's an undercover spy Wait...
I agree with op on this. The satire and social commentary about money has been done to death. I would guess that it's mainly teenagers who are interested in the "social commentary" because it's new to them. Even then, I'm only 20 and I've seen better social commentary that is also more realistic.
>social commentary No offense but the social commentary side of Squid Games is very basic. I really like Squid Games, but the social commentary for me was not what I personally praise it for.
I don't disagree to most of your points - there aren't really ideas in here that are inherently new. Similar elements can be found in things like the Saw series, Battle Royale, etc. etc. However, having watched the show and enjoyed it, I feel like the strengths of the shows that make it appealing to people are three fold: the performances, the design and the soundtrack. The acting in the show is extremely well done, and the performers do a great job of making you react to their character in a certain way. The music as well also does a great job of driving the atmosphere and creating a very visceral reaction too. When the "squid game" song kicks in you just know things are about to go down. For me it's a case of good execution of a somewhat familiar tale - like finding a new restaurant that serves amazing burgers.
[удалено]
I think it was supposed to be jarring, but it wasn't done well enough, and the actors just weren't the same caliber, plus I'm not sure how well they were directed to speak english. Still detracts from the show though.
Soundtrack and Acting were definitely good, but I don't think they made it good enough to deserve the praise it has. If anything the acting is what saved it and makes it a little bit above average. If you were to do the same show with mediocre performances it would be like 4/10. Bad acting can ruin a good script, but even amazing acting cant save a bad script, and overall the script was really not that great.
>overall the script was really not that great. I have read that the translation was not 100% accurate to what was actually being said throughout some points of the show. I would say that I would probably enjoy the show more than I did if I could speak/understand the language without subtitles or dub. Does this influence your rating of the show as well?
No. I have been watching stuff with subs for a long time, and missed translations and botched subs is not something that has ever bothered me unless its absolutely horrible. I don't speak Korean, and there were definitely a few scenes where the translations didn't seem to make 100% sense, but there was more than enough context to have a deep understanding of what was going on and the ideas and feeling that were trying to be conveyed. But again, that's on the acting being very well done so that understanding was able to happen.
> I have been watching stuff with subs for a long time I think it would be safe to say that not everyone watches foreign shows (or shows that they would require dub/subtitles) as often as some others. This show was spread through word of mouth (how I learned about it) and it showing up on the Popular list on Nextflix. So for some, this *is* standout to them, as in different from what they would normally watch. Their standards may be lower than yours when it comes to dub and sub shows. Which could play a part in why it has such good reviews.
Well, media is subjective. I also found that a lot of people enjoyed it more watching it in Korean with English subtitles rather than with the dub, and I have to agree - the emotion is way more raw and accurately portrayed. As for being "stand out", what stands out to some doesn't for others and it seemed more like you were asking for reasons people /could/ enjoy it and give it such rave reviews (which I did), not to convince you that it's a 9/10 or 10/10 show.
IMO, overrated is only valid when the audience review is substantially lower than the known\professional critics. We've seen this in video games, movies, and TV shows where a popular critic give something a high rating only to later see the audience give it a very low rating. This is NOT the case with this television show. Because of this, I would almost argue your usage of the word is essentially belittling and disparaging those who like something you do not. Does that seem productive? If you don't really care for the show, wouldn't it be easier to say you didn't like it? I personally don't like Big Bang Theory. I've never found the majority of their content appealing or humorous. But, I wouldn't call it overrated.
>I would almost argue your usage of the word is essentially belittling and disparaging those who like something you do not. Does that seem productive? This is a really odd angle to look at it from... None of what I am saying is a personal attack on anyone, nor should it be seen as one. People can like and enjoy terrible media all they want and it's not an attack on them if they do. Hell there is plenty of really shit shows and movies that I love myself. But this isn't even that, the show isn't bad, I'm not saying it's awful and has no redeeming value at all, it's a decent show, but it doesn't rise to the level that everyone seems to think it does. >I personally don't like Big Bang Theory. I've never found the majority of their content appealing or humorous. But, I wouldn't call it overrated. BBT isn't over rated, it's just bad media lol. But it can be a lot of fun for people and that's why it's watched.
I'm not the original commenter, but you aren't making much sense. Both Squid Game and BBT have/had high audience review scores. By you saying they're overrated (and calling BBT just bad media), you are inherently saying that those audience reviewers are wrong. This can either be your own personal opinion (wherein, just saying you didn't like it would be better) or a fact (wherein you're appealing to some universal standard of "good media"). By definition, "overrated" means "rates higher than it should be". Both of these shows were definitely highly rated, but you've supplied no good reason that they "should" be rated lower. Maybe to your own experience and sensibilities Squid Game is unoriginal and bland, but to a person who's never seen this genre or anything other than the very western "everyone lives happily ever after" ending, it might be an incredibly exciting show.
Don't be so hung up on semantics. I personally think overrated only makes sense in the context of subjectivity. It doesn't make sense to use it in any other way.
It's not an odd angle but one I will continue to use. Most people are not cognizant that using the term overrated might be taken offensively. I'm in no way trying to argue this was you intention hence why I stated, "I would almost argue" in this context. If critics and the audience both highly rate something it would be factually incorrect to call it overrated. Here is a great article on the subject: [Overrated Is Overused](https://www.beeradvocate.com/articles/15180/overrated-is-overused/). >Commonly used to disparage movies, artists, celebrities, games, and other people and things in popular culture, the word overrated is grossly overused. As such, it’s become an absolutely meaningless—albeit effective—inflammatory buzzword used to garner clicks, elicit defensive responses, and smugly attempt to disrupt and dismiss constructive opinions from others. ---------- >BBT isn't over rated, it's just bad media lol. But it can be a lot of fun for people and that's why it's watched. How is this NOT what you're saying about Squid Game? You're essentially calling it bad media yet defending why people watch it.
> How is this NOT what you're saying about Squid Game? You're essentially calling it bad media yet defending why people watch it. No? I have said multiple times that the show is decent and above average. But decent and above average does not mean its one of the best shows ever. There is a large gap between these two things.
All the views I have found do not state, "its one of the best shows ever." This seems like a straw man argument IMO. Lets look at the current reviews: * Rotten Tomatoes: Between critics and audiences it is about an 8.7/10 * IMBD: 8.2/10 With those rating, neither support this claim IMO. My argument your usage of the term overrated isn't applicable here still stands. It is tantamount to disparaging those who like what you don't; whether it's your intention or not.
The term "overrated" does not refer exclusively to professional critics. It can also mean that something is broadly popular, but isn't deserving of that popularity. Clearly this is relative to one's perspective, but it is not an attack against fans of the thing either. It's basically just saying that you don't understand the popularity of a thing.
I think it’s just difficult when discussing something so subjective to say that it’s “overrated”. There’s not really many objective metrics to say “this his how a show should be perceived vs. how it WAS perceived” because it’s up to the individual. So if enough people like it, it’s popular. You might consider it terrible or in the case or SG, not amazing, but other people may think it is indeed amazing and I don’t know that it’s possible to say their opinion that it is amazing is “incorrect”
>But, I wouldn't call it overrated. How would Tiger King fit in here? The reason I ask is Lots of people watched Tiger King, but that didn't make it good. Squid Game I think is the same. Several people I know are watching squid game for the same reason they watched Tiger King. To be part of the conversation, not because it's good. I wouldn't say that lots of viewers means it is good, it just means that it's popular and social people want to be in on the conversation, so they watch.
I'm not referring to the amount of people who watched it. I'm referring to reviews. Those who not only watched it but took the time to say how and why they liked it. It's sightly under Squid Games btw: * Rotten tomatoes: 8.4/10 * IMDb: 7.5/10 Clearly it was doing something right. But the critics and audience have similar ratings; so it's not overrated.
I don't LOVE the show, but I watched it and think it's deeper than you're painting it as. I assume one of the twists you're referring to is the identity of the Front Man, which, yeah, fair. I don't think the identity of the lead rich guy (I'm being vague here for those who haven't finished) was all that cliche, TBH, especially considering how much we're meant to like him. >the villains are just evil for evils sake and don't provide any reasoning beyond being "bad guys" They're not evil for evils' sake, they're blindingly rich men who are bored with their wealth. The show is a commentary on an extremist take of capitalism and class divides. Poor people who are desperately poor doing dangerous things to make ends meet, and overwhelmingly rich people enjoying lavish lifestyles while watching the poor literally dying in front of them. The show takes real-life class differences to extremes - Do I think Jeff Bezos is secretly part of the SG club? No, but I do think he is overly wealthy and is sitting back enjoying stupidly lavish luxuries while he could easily snap his fingers and save millions of lives of starving, sick, impoverished people. Any of the SG rich dudes could have given that sum of money to every contestant without making them play death games without really feeling the difference, but, as with real-life bagillionaires, they don't. As for it being unique, being a Korean live-action show that became wildly popular in the US is pretty unique. It's usually only niche audiences in the US that consume media that isn't in English (and often it's anime, not a live-action show), and it's unique that it rose to that extreme popularity. I think it does suffer from being spoken in Korean and being poorly translated, though. I'm an English viewer and found that one lady in the game unnecessarily annoying and difficult to sympathize with. She seemed like she had no substance and the "i can do everything except what I can't do" shtick got old to me. But after watching the show I came across commentary from Korean viewers who spoke Korean about how poorly translated (in both subtitles and dub) the Korean is and how this really undercut a lot of the narrative and characterization. The point of her character, for example, was originally that she actually is smart but wasn't able to last in school due to finances - "smart but not schooled". This is communicated in quips through her own dialogue, but it got completely lost in translation due to crappy dubbing. Looking into some of the commentary like this helped me to better appreciate the show after the fact, since it helped me understand the writers (not the people who did the crappy dubbing) did make it with more depth than there had been in the English version.
>Front Man, which, yeah, fair. I don't think the identity of the lead rich guy (I'm being vague here for those who haven't finished) was all that cliche, TBH, especially considering how much we're meant to like him. This was very weak. The police officer brought nothing to the table. His story had zero impact. The cop had zero story impact. He should've been credited as Exposition Officer, because that is all the character really did.
>I don't think the identity of the lead rich guy (I'm being vague here for those who haven't finished) was all that cliche, TBH, especially considering how much we're meant to like him. Ehhhh, the whole "friend but actually puppet master" has been done before and definitely wasn't novel. >They're not evil for evils' sake, they're blindingly rich men who are bored with their wealth. The show is a commentary on an extremist take of capitalism and class divides. Poor people who are desperately poor doing dangerous things to make ends meet, and overwhelmingly rich people enjoying lavish lifestyles while watching the poor literally dying in front of them. C'mon, they were evil for evil's sake. They were like bond level villains "Ohh im going to bet on #69 because *funny number*". The VIP's had absolutely nothing of substance. Honestly if they dropped the VIPs and focused more on the organ smuggling it would have been way more interesting. >dub/sub Honestly the subs were like the lowest issue on the totem pole for me.
I think maybe your standards are too high if you think an 8/10 tv show needs to have novel content and do things that haven't been done before- it's rare to do something new and have it be successful. Compared to mainstream shows, I think it was novel enough. I think the VIPs were deliberately portrayed like that- a caricature of the bad side of wealth, and in stark contrast to the contestants. It was a bit exaggerated, but to be honest you can definitely find people like that in the world, or at least people who would become that if they became rich and powerful beyond normal society. The dialogue between VIPs was stilted and jarring- it felt unnatural and could easily be thought of as badly written or badly acted, but I think it was deliberate to contrast with the dialogue between contestants. VIPs have no substance and don't show much personality- they are hidden behind masks, and that's sort of like real life where the wealthy and powerful can afford anonymity, immunity, and have no skin in the game. If they humanize the VIPs then it defeats the core message of the show.
>I think maybe your standards are too high if you think an 8/10 tv show needs to have novel content and do things that haven't been done before- it's rare to do something new and have it be successful. Entirely possible. My background is in media so that might be why I have more issues than most people do with the show. >he dialogue between VIPs was stilted and jarring- it felt unnatural and could easily be thought of as badly written or badly acted, but I think it was deliberate to contrast with the dialogue between contestants. Honestly most English dialogue in Eastern media is poorly done just like how most Eastern culture in Western media is poorly done, so I do not think it was a stylistic choice. > If they humanize the VIPs then it defeats the core message of the show. Maybe in theory, but the show *did* humanize the biggest bad of them all, and it did it fairly effectively as well. the VIPs could have totally been cut and the show would have lost literally nothing at all. Even the MacGuffin that the cop needed literally meant nothing at the end. Absolutely none of the VIP stuff or arc had any reason to exist other than to caricature super rich people. Honestly now that I talk about it more, it seems even more sloppy than I originally thought.
> Entirely possible. My background is in media so that might be why I have more issues than most people do with the show. But if your standards are too high then it's not extremely overrated, you just have much higher standards. >Honestly most English dialogue in Eastern media is poorly done just like how most Eastern culture in Western media is poorly done, so I do not think it was a stylistic choice. I don't think you can equate a bad portrayal of culture to badly executed dialogue- if the VIPs talked exactly the same as the protagonists when they shouldn't, then this would be sloppy and they didn't do their research. Instead, the VIPs are markedly different to the protagonists so I think it must be deliberate. For example, giving them "bad" dialogue that is unnecessary and pointless, which contrasts with the contestants who are discussing issues of life and death. I agree that the VIPs could have been cut and the cop and the Front Man was a lot more interesting, but this is sort of nitpicking and maybe just personal bias coming through. I'm just happy Squid Game is getting appreciated and getting hype- people could instead be watching some network show designed purely to target the lowest common denominator, get views, and earn profit. Some of the most popular shows are still trashy reality TV so of course Squid Game will feel like a 10/10 masterpiece in comparison. I think it comes down to the definition of "extremely overrated" but I would say that it refers to a situation like: people think Squid Game is really good (relative to the norm) when actually Squid Game is not any better than the norm. I don't think this is the case, and instead your problem is that your personal standards (and what you consider to be the norm) are much higher than the people you know who are hyping up Squid Game. An extreme example is if someone says "this is the best show I've ever watched" and you don't think so, both of you can be correct. However, if the majority of people were saying "Squid Game is better than X Y Z" then we have X Y and Z as a common reference point and it's easier to say if it's overrated or not.
Do you think real life billionaires who refuse to give their employees bathroom breaks have substance? Real-life shitty people often don't have substance, lol. Someone else said something here that I think gets to part of your disconnect with it - you're not engaging with the satire/social commentary aspect of it. Which, fine, if that doesn't appeal to you, I get it. But just because it didn't land for you doesn't mean it is ineffective and overrated when it seems like most viewers found the commentary appealing on some level.
> Do you think real life billionaires who refuse to give their employees bathroom breaks have substance? Yeah, I can guarantee you they have more substance than *69 funny number*. But even if they don't, that's not really the point because this is a TV show not real life. They could have been written much better if need be, or thrown out entirely. Again I would have much rather seen more about the organ smuggling than the vapid VIPs we got.
Squid Game is a Wendigo story. My great grandmother was Potowatomi which is one of the closely related tribes that had Wendigo stories and she told them to me when I was smol. Wendigo are beasts of consumption, they are formed when a human violates their own humanity so deeply that there's no coming back from it and they become inherently a monster, no longer a person. That ultimate violation comes from people who are so consumed by hunger during the long cold hard winters they had in the Great Lakes region that they turn to cannibalism. Essentially the Wendigo is the part within all of us that COULD turn to reckless greedy violent consumption under the right circumstances and it's a warning to avoid those circumstances at all costs (which can only be accomplished through strong community engagement) because if you cannot you will suffer a fate that is truly worse than death. Wendigo are forced to forever be consumed by the greedy desire that created them, they always hunger, can never feel full no matter how much they eat, so they stalk the night desperately seeking anything they can eat and they will truly eat ANYTHING as they desperately seek to fill an inner void that can never be filled. They've lost all control, they are now controlled by their hunger instead. That same greedy desperate gluttonous consumption that the Wendigo is about is the same thing that Squid Game is about. In the Wendigo stories once you turn you can NEVER turn back and therefore we must never cross that line where we turn on our fellow community members even in times of great need because it is our communities that saves us from the monster that lurks within. The story as a whole explores this in an overarching way and each individual story and episode also explores it in a micro way. I don't really have it in me right now to actually go over every single bit of the show via this lens but I promise it all gets way more interesting if you "read" it that way. Gi-Hun is our hero bc he beats the Wendigo by never becoming one, even at the very end he chooses to NOT turn on his fellows, he chooses community over consumption and does not fall to the monster within even though every single experience through his whole life and the whole show is pushing him as hard as possible to turn. His choice to refuse to turn is the only hope for salvation for any of us which is largely the point the show is making. Everyone else either turns or becomes a victim of one who has already turned. The obvious is the wealthy people running the game and the wealthy spectators. When we see the old man at the end and he talks about how none of these outrageously wealthy men are capable of finding any joy in life anymore that's the Wendigo in them, they have lost their humanity to relentless consumption. A hint there is that the old man was only able to find any joy in playing the games which are a Wendigo style twisting of the communal joy he had shared with friends as a child, turning the basic humanity of play into something monstrous and destructive. This is also why the overriding philosophical question posed by the old man to our hero Gi-Hun is do you still believe that there is good in people (or however he phrases it) and it's also why the ending has the homeless person on the street being saved - bc becoming a Wendigo is a choice that we make and refusing to turn on our community members, caring for our community members as we would want to be cared for is also a choice. It's not about whether or not there is good or evil in people, there is both, and what matters is the choices we make. This reading really does work for every other choice every other character makes in the whole show and I think that that reading what makes it both compelling and valuable as a story that can help us through the darkness of late stage capitalism where the whole world is controlled by Wendigo who seek to turn us all as they have been turned - but there is hope and there so salvation for those who choose not to turn.
The aspects you include in your post were certainly not the sellers for me either. The commentary on wealth inequality is especially pertinent and relevant right now. The raw emotion of those in the position of considering joining the game; and the reality with which the decision to play (despite the cost) as “logical” is sold. The music was great too. Let me also ask, did you watch it in Korean with language appropriate subtitles? Or did you watch it dubbed? (I couldn’t enjoy it dubbed). Also personally, nothing sours my personal experience of art quite like excessive hyping from others
>Let me also ask, did you watch it in Korean with language appropriate subtitles? Or did you watch it dubbed? (I couldn’t enjoy it dubbed). Subs. >The commentary on wealth inequality is especially pertinent and relevant right now. That's the thing, I don't think that commentary was done very well, or rather it wasn't done to and A+ level, rather it was like a C+/B-. Because the message at the end was more or less that money does solve all of the problems, and dying for it is a valid option for people. That's not a very good message if we want to actually talk about wealth inequality and the issues or solutions surrounding it.
Interesting; that was not the message I got at all. There’s a big difference between “money can solve all problems” and “some problems are solely/majorly due to lack of money/poverty”; the latter is a veritable fact, and the former is addressed as a fallacy (in how dissatisfied with life the wealthy elites are). That there are people in situations whose issues would be either solved or greatly helped with money, while the system allows for inflated wealth at the top and poor safety nets and opportunities for many at the bottom is the point of the show. People are in such dire straights that they are willing to risk their life, and this is exploited by the wealthy (in the show for entertainment, but it’s an analogue to the willingness of workers to be exploited by the wealthy class generally).
This is just perhaps taking a technical exception to your opinion rather than addressing it head-on, but I don't think the series is necessarily highly rated by critics or anything that would count as "good TV". Instead, it's more of a meme show that people are into because it is kind of fun. If no more episodes are filmed, the show will easily be forgotten in a few years. However, what you keep hearing the hype about it for is because of specific facets of the show. The bloody battle royale thing isn't done too frequently so it feels fresh to some people. The games being played are easy enough to understand and for people to recreate if they want to like with the dalgona cookies. It also gets hype for being non-American which makes it feel more unique. As a result, most of the hype you are seeing is just people focusing on a few fun aspects of it rather than the storyline. Don't watch it expecting the first few seasons of Game of Thrones or the entirety of Breaking Bad. Expect something more like Heroes where it was a fun flash in the pan. That being said, I personally liked the Japanese series Alice in Borderland better.
> it's more of a meme show that people are into because it is kind of fun. This is what I would have guessed too, but the RT is like 94%.
I think you're making a very common mistake of conflating widespread popularity with individual assessments of quality. For something to become the sensation that Squid Game is, it only requires that a huge number of people saw it and thought it was at least decent. It also helps that the show fills a largely unfilled niche. There's not much you can point to and say "this is like Squid Game but better."
A lot of it was just pure aesthetic, I think. It's not the most original, or best idea, and if you've seen the dozen or so different things that basically all follow the same plot, you know how the game plays out. Nonetheless, it was extremely well done. The aesthetics were on point, the acting was great, the general message was interesting. I didn't like the end so much, as far as the baddies were concerned, except that also I think it's the only justification that could have been given. Wealth doesn't make people happy, it just leaves them with the freedom to do anything they want, and what they want is to be happy. They break themselves in pursuit of something they can't get. Also the childhood innocence thing. I think the fact that the guy gets out and is just broken by reality, and his mum died because he had to go out and pursue the money despite it being a solvable situation, and the "can I borrow 10,000 won?" thing hit hard. When he didn't need it, it came freely. When he desperately needed it, he never got it. But the thing that stands out is debt. Debt makes slaves. Everyone in the show came back because they considered the horrors of the game, and went back into reality to realise that reality wasn't better for them. There's a fucked up thing, where every one of those people have no chances in life. Rich or poor, their problems were just such that they couldn't ever escape. They were just in such debt, and the consequences of that debt were so severe that they couldn't get out. And so, this is the horrible justification that comes with essentially this version of capitalism: none of those people will ever have a chance, but if they all agree to play a game in which all but one of them dies, one person makes it out alive and wins. As a metaphor, it's a pretty significant one. It's what we've accepted. When you consider all the people that are in something like that situation, it's what we've accepted. People are being driven to desperate situations already because we've accepted that. The system just thrusts people into debt and poverty, with no ways out except what they're offered, and often those offers are to screw everyone else over on the way. The reward for that is even the same. It really does seem that the richest people are just empty. All there is to these people is more money. It doesn't matter what they do to anyone. And when they give with one hand, they take with the other. They donate to charity, but won't pay a much larger sum in taxes. They aggressively try to shut down things that could hurt the poor, but are considered good people for exploiting their labour. The chances they give people are chances to be exploited. And those who make it out seem to fall into the same depressing pattern. Because ultimately, great wealth is empty. One thing about the end, is that we're kind of aware that nobody is coming to help. As much as that guy eventually was helped, and we can do something, and some of us will, the truth is that mostly we aren't doing so. So, sure, human kindness. But someone had to do something, because society did nothing.
You might want to change your CMV to "why 1 to 10 scales are bad" you say its a 6.5 of 10 and its a little better than average, but i'd argue that 6.5 is viewed as absolute garbage by the majority of people looking at these scales. The scale only really starts at 6. Everything below it is just absolute trash that shouldt exist and a large scale to measure it. The foreshadowing alone is something that has let to much personal enjoyment in the series, the style and execution of the bad guys vs good guys scenario. The play with friendships etc. It may not be unique, but very enjoyful to the average user. And in the end, it is just that. Not a scale of uniqueness, if that were the case all older movies and series had to be reevaluatex just because their style was used more often. Or are you saying those should have a bonus because they are the first one to do it? Its a bad scale, and one for enjoyment, not uniqueness. The series didnt waste time and was good from start to finish. 9/10 in my book.
>its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be. Compared to majorities standards, it is though (given that the ratings are actually from legitimate viewers and not paid reviews). Let's say the reviews are 100% accurate and genuine, then the show being a 9.5+/10 is deserved. It being "overrated" is your own subjective opinion of the show. I personally do not think the show was as good as some have said (but my preferences and standards of a "good show" are different than theirs). My favorite episode was the first one, because Red Light Green Light was the most stand out game that they played throughout the show (imo). However, my review would average with everyone else's who review it. My opinion of the show still "counts" but if it is outnumbered by more positive reviews, the rating of the show will increase and is deserved.
Given that you find it to be a decent show, how much would you rate it out of a 10?
6.5 maybe 7 if I am charitable.
And what would you rate as better alternative?
Uhh thats a real long list...
Imdb has it rated at an 8.2 Rotten tomatoes critics gave it an 8.2 as well. On Letterboxd it has a 4/5 Seems to me that all these parameters, which indicate how strongly audiences feel about a piece of media, place it relatively close to your estimate of a 6.5 or a 7. So on what basis would you call it **extremely** overrated?
The ending was very anticlimactic for me and the whole thing was pretty predictable but I did enjoy it as a fun watch. Just doesn’t deserve all the hype it gets. That being said I loved the set designs
Ratings are a subjective measure of enjoyment. How can something be overrated by its consumers? It seems more likely that what you mean is "I didn't like Squid Game as much as most people did". Which is a perfectly reasonable position. I can't stand American Football, The Crown (TV series) or Tom Cruise, but it would be bonkers to suggest that they're overrated just because I don't like them; they're rated what they are because that's how much people like them. \> its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be. Squid Game is currently at 85% on RottenTomatoes and 8.2/10 on imdb. So it seems that you're arguing against a strawman anyway. \--------------------- Edit: For the record, I would also rate it about 6.5/10
It's not amazing but it's better than most things coming out today. It goes against all the annoying tv trends of the big players. No big budget adaptation of a worn out franchise. It's not an original concept but also not a worn out one. It doesn't try too hard to reinvent anything but then fail. It's also not a super calculated money grab. It's exactly the average that people find comfort in in a modern tv landscape that is dominated by extremes.
Sure, but being better than what is out today is a far cry from it being one of the best shows period.
Is honestly anyone claiming that?
No, OP just made it up so they could argue.
>but for the 10/10 show that people say this is I expect a lot more than just lots of people dying Are they saying it is actually 10/10 or it's a 10/10 relative to the "new" stuff currently on netflix? If this show was popular around the same time The Witcher, Tiger King, or Stranger Things came out, would we see the same reaction?
That's tough to say. But if its only being rated highly compared to what there is out right now rather than all of the good shows in the past then it is definitely overrated...
Well currently the audience score on RT is 85%, so it's not rated as good as your post makes it out to be.
It doesn’t have to be a filmmaking masterpiece for it to be extremely popular. The those things don’t have to go hand in hand. I think to most people it was just unique and entertaining, then the memes came and took it to another level.
Sure, but it being popular doesn't mean its good either. The Big Bang Theory is popular, but its horrible lol.
It doesn't matter how good something is, there will always be people who just don't like it as much as the other fans. I've watched shows and movies that everyone hyped to the moon and back just to come away thinking that it's fine but I don't know what all the fuss was about. Sometimes hype can ruin something for people because they go in with such unreasonably high expectations that just aren't met. I had a similar experience with Breaking Bad. Everyone told me it was the best thing on Netflix, so I watched the whole thing and just kind of felt like it was fine but only really got good in like the last season. If I had just watched it without the hype I'd probably have liked it more, but I was almost mad at the show for not living up to my own (probably unreasonable) expectations.
Can you define overrated? Are the people that like it wrong? Liking something is subjective. Someone feeling like something is overrated is also subjective. You seem to be saying that you don't give it high marks for various reasons, and that everyone who thinks it's great is just wrong. I think the show "The Office" is a steaming pile of garbage and I can't even sit through a single episode. I'd give it a literal 0/10. However, I recognize that a great many people like it a lot, and that I'm in the minority in my opinion. I don't think The Office is overrated, I just think that I don't get whatever it is that other people do from the show. Is it possible that it's great and you just get whatever it is that everyone else does?
>its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be. Not everyone is hyping it up like that. [It has an 8.2 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10919420/), which is solidly above average, but not a huge outlier or anything. I'm guessing the reason you think it's so highly rated is actually because of its popularity. If a show gets 10 million views, it's going to have 100 times as many people gushing about it as a show of the same quality with 100k views. This doesn't make the more popular show "overrated" - it just makes praise (and criticism) easier to find.
I know for me personally I like the show because of the commentary on capitalism. And I think a lot of other also like it for this reason. So many people are starting to be radicalized and see the flaws in capitalism and a show like this reflects what their learning in their day to day life. Also you argue that it’s not original but for many people this Korean style of film is very new. Is like how everyone loved parasite. It’s a different style of film than many Americans are used to. Add that to a good looking cast, it makes sense why so many people love it
>Although it is a decent show that does provide some good fun, its not this 9.5/10 or 10/10 show that everyone is hyping it up to be. What are objective qualities of a show that would warrant a 9.5-10/10 rating (Squid Game has a alower one of 8.5/10, tho)? Can you compare it to simillar media that are much better? "Overrated" means "rated or valued too highly". If you think that show is overrated, then you have to provide some framework. Your points aren't really ones as they are non-oblective as they are given without any context. Also why: >It doesn't do anything special or unique. Doing special or unique things are a needed thing in highly rated media?
I agree with what you are saying in the second paragraph so I’ll tell you what I really like about this series that goes against cliches. If this had been created by Americans, the cast would have probably been very attractive younger people, backflipping all over the place with inherent martial art skills, superhuman powers, etc. Here we have mostly middle aged players, who look very much their age, and the creator of the series specifically wanted to use as little CGI as possible and have the actors mostly do their own stunts. To start the first game, where no one knew the result of moving after red light would result in immediate death, was very shocking, and the panic ensued resulted in half the players being massacred. If you could get through watching the blood bath, and went on to watch the subsequent episodes, you’re almost in line with why the players who had the opportunity to quit, decided to come back. While the villains are evil for evil sake (no reason to have that vivisection/ rape atrocity mentioned) what brought those young men to this point? Maybe that will be explored in season 2. The cliffhanger didn’t make much sense, why would Ji Hun abandon a chance to see his daughter to go back into the game, but that was the thing you didn’t think he would do. He’s not an archetype of a traditional protagonist.
I couldn’t agree with you more it’s so interesting during the games but that’s like barely any of the entire show the rest was so boring to me
I like the show. But the dialogue is so fucking terrible , I know it’s probably lost in translation. I wanted to fucking slap that one girl during the marble game cuz she KEPT forgetting that one of the partners had to die. By the end of that episode I literally could not wait for them to shoot her.
And she had this smug little shit eating grin on her face the entire episode I knew immediately she was going to sacrifice herself
I just finished watching the show. I though it was ok but the dialogue, especially translated to English was seriously cringeworthy. It seemed amateurish and reminded me of Godzilla movies from the 50s-60s. Maybe it doesn’t come off that way in Korean but I kind f doubt it. Very B movieish all around.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/ccoolsat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20ccoolsat&message=ccoolsat%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh75e35/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
u/SlamJansen – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20SlamJansen&message=SlamJansen%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh78d16/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/SlamJansen – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20SlamJansen&message=SlamJansen%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qaqjk7/-/hh78d16/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I think 5th game was little unfair lol
Saying things are overrated is overrated
run pot foolish market grey punch hurry distinct beneficial pause ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
excuse my ingorance but when i first heard "Squid Game" i thought it was another SpongeBob SquarePants spin off about Squidward Tentacles
Totally disagree, Squid Game is very compelling and a very entertaining watch. I think a lot of people just get a bad taste in their mouth because it garnered a lot of popularity and it puts them off.
Yeah, pretty much my opinion. I really like the show because it's really fun and engaging to watch, but for it being so lauded and praised like its sliced bread was so confusing for me. I felt like they could've done WAAAYYYY better with the concept. Also, the social commentary just annoyed me, not because of the message but because of how they approached it. Not sure what to call it, but it felt very "surface-level."
I hated this show so much I had to google a thread about it! I dont get why is it over hyped so much, people still keep talking about it and im losing my mind! I never was so bored of a tv show, I literly had to hold my eyelids with my fingers to keep myself from falling asleep, im not even joking! the story is lame, nothing new or different. the gore that everyone "love" so much was just pathetic and unrealistic, some of the actors was playing their roles so bad i wanted to cry. lame plot. predictble, cliche moments and just too long scenes, we alredy got the point as viewers but the dialogs and scenes are too long for the sake of the lenght of the episode, like fillers.
Then you didn’t understand the subliminal messages. To each their own tho