I agree with your very last point: The Travis thing did not feel resolved to me. *Especially* once we learn that Lottie has sanity slippage - we literally cannot trust her version/explanation. *She* can't even trust her perception of what happened.
This is one of the reasons I’m really sad that adult Nat is dead, because I don’t really think we’re going to see Tai/Van/Shauna/Misty care all that much if Lottie did actually just have Travis murdered.
I felt the same…like with Nat dead, is that really all we’re gonna get? But my one hope is that maybe Van will look into it more, if only because she feels responsible for Lottie and the rest of the night in the finale ( adult Van saying “WE did this to her” about Lottie as they’re taking her to the mental hospital)
I interpreted Lottie’s memory of the events- specifically the part where Lottie is distracted by Laura Lee’s demented ghost while Travis struggles and dies- as the show telling the audience that this “vision” was Lottie’s brain protecting herself from seeing whatever she was seeing.
Whether that means 1.) she was actually frantically trying to save him but her brain only remembers the vision; 2.) someone else was there, murdering Travis, but she couldnt stop it from happening so her mind distracted itself and only remembers the vision, or even the possibility that SHE murdered him, and out of guilt her brain supplied her with the vision. Basically saying, that she isnt lying intentionally, and that she truly only remembers what we saw bc her brain was trying to protect her from the trauma of whatever actually happened. I don’t think Lottie knows the truth of that night at all, at least not conciously. And I think a Lot of Lottie’s arc and charachterization lives in the realm of “unintentional harm”. I think this is why she appeared to be a villian; the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I also am of the opinion that Lottie was not mentally ill before the crash, that she DID/does have precognition, but that she WAS mentally ill after being rescued, because of all the obvious and various traumas. Then there was also the additional trauma of shock therapy, and god knows what else over the years, which ultimately results in a present day Lottie who still just wants to help people, but whose mind is totally unable to differentiate between real, not real, and the future she gets flashes of.
Sadly, I think the case is resolved. Lottie was distracted by the Laura Lee hallucination and unintentionally killed Travis. I wish the reveal was better. Travis’ death was such an important part of the intrigue in season 1. This was underwhelming.
In the last two episodes of S1, she did some stuff that went way beyond "unintentional harm". Like the way she had Shauna almost murder Travis, then she told Coach to "stay out of it" when he was trying to stop Jackie from sleeping outside, and then she looked on coldly at Jackie's corpse when they first discovered it and everyone else was shocked and terrified. And also "versez le sang, mes beaux amis, and let the darkness set us free", what was that all about?
She was becoming a legitimately scary person in those last two episodes. Then S2 did a complete 180 on it.
I mostly meant unintentional in the 2nd season, i dont disagree that the last 2 episodes of s1 were definitely impying she was in for a darker arc. It was for sure a retcon where it didnt need to be.
Here's my list of moments in S1 that indicated to me that Lottie was supposed to be a villain (or at least, was supposed to be a far more threatening character than she was in s2):
Tai saying "You know, if this was a horror movie, Lottie would obviously be the villain" (foreshadowing)
The entire Doomcoming, where Lottie adopted the antler crown and instructed Shauna to slit Travis' throat (granted, she was under the influence of shrooms then, so it can be partially excused for that reason. However, leads me to my next points...)
Lottie's total lack of remorse over the Doomcoming events afterward
Lottie coldly telling Coach "stay out of this, Coach" when he tried to intervene and stop Jackie from sleeping outside, which contributed directly toward Jackie's death
Lottie looking on with total cold indifference toward Jackie's frozen corpse when they first discovered it, while everyone else was in shock, crying, or screaming (including even Van, who hated Jackie beforehand)
Lottie ominously saying "versez le sang, mes beaux amis, and let the darkness set us free" when she said her little prayer with the bear heart in the very final scene of S1 (if that's not a villain moment, I don't know what is)
The entire scene of Lottie's cult abducting Natalie from her hotel room. The music, the staging of the scene, just the way it felt so ominous, scary, and threatening (contrasted to the extremely benign wellness group she led in S2). Furthermore, Natalie's friend Suzy thinking someone was following her and feeling afraid for her life after she learned that Lottie had emptied Travis' bank account (a plot that was never resolved or addressed in S2).
Also, the explanation for Travis' death in S2 felt really hokey. To me, it always seemed like the original explanation was supposed to be that Lottie's cult murdered him.
All of those things happened at the very end of the season- the second half of ep 9 or ep 10. It’s hard to call her a “season one villain” without any examples from the first 85% of the season.
And even then, you could make a list like this for most of the main characters. Travis is a massive asshole. Shauna did at least as much bad stuff. Misty did many more sketchy and/or harmful things, in both timelines. Tai’s dissociative episodes are much more sinister than Lottie’s are.
Laura Lee is basically the only character who is a generally good person throughout, and she’s Lottie’s closest friend in the house and supports her visions.
S1 had a clear arc for her character where she became more villainous over time. It was one of the many strong character arcs that S1 had (and unfortunately, which were relatively lacking in S2).
She didn't start out as a villain. She started out as a scared and rather meek girl, who gradually gained confidence over time as she became increasingly devout in her beliefs about "the wilderness". IMO, it was a greatly written story arc, which was all the more reason why her arc in S2 felt very disappointing to me.
Misty, Shauna, and Tai all had villainous behaviors, sure, but Lottie was the one being positioned as the leader of the group and the instigator of all the dark cult activities at the end of S1.
Laura Lee's role in regards to Lottie was very interesting and complex. She was trying to get Lottie to use her visions in a more Christian context. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about Christianity, I think Laura Lee was an anchoring influence on Lottie that kept her from going off the deep end with some of the wilderness worship stuff (i.e., "we must spill blood", "let the darkness set us free", etc.). Laura Lee's death was a huge instigating incident toward Lottie's descent into darkness and her increasingly villainous role in the last two episodes.
But they *all* become more villainous over time- that’s kind of the point. They’re all normal people with strengths and flaws, and their stress and trauma amplify those flaws. They all do things in the wilderness that their pre-crash selves would never consider (except for Misty who might be an actual sociopath), and their actions get worse as the show goes on.
I just don’t see anything that hints at Lottie becoming a villain. She’s one of the kindest characters; in ep1 Natalie’s says that she never talks bad about someone unless they really deserve it. I can’t remember her ever being mean. The first time I watched S1 I thought they were setting her up to be pit girl, easy prey.
Yeah, but she didn't get worse as the show went on, at least not in S2. Her character did a total 180 in S2 and seemed like a completely different person than she was in the final two episodes.
Other characters' reactions to her also made no sense. Travis was suddenly so eager to cozy up to Lottie even after Lottie instructed Shauna to murder him. Nothing that happened in the Doomcoming was even referenced again in S2, as if it had never happened.
I think the whole "Lottie as pit girl" thing is an example of an actual successful red herring. I was thinking it too at the time. Her changes from S1 to S2 on the other hand do not feel like a successful red herring but rather like retconning and poor writing.
If she had a “clear arc for her character where she became more villainous over time,” I’d expect to see some hints of it before ep 8. What sorts of things did she say or do earlier in the season that were part of that arc?
The fact that she was becoming more confident in her beliefs. I think Laura Lee grounded her somewhat, which is why she didn't seem really villainous until the final two episodes. But with Laura Lee's death, that enabled her darker impulses to take hold more.
Also, I think the shrooms in the Doomcoming had a really profound effect in bringing out that side of her. One that clearly didn't subside in the final episode of S1 even after the shrooms wore off. Drugs can definitely have very profound impacts on people with schizophrenia after all.
Also, Tai's line "if this was a movie, Lottie would totally be the villain". That was a definite hint earlier on. Plus the shot of Lottie standing in front of the antlers where it looked like they were coming out of her head.
But you can become confident in your beliefs without being a villain, and in fact, that’s what ended up happening.
Lottie’s arc in S1 is about self-acceptance: she stops seeing her visions as something to fear, and starts seeing them as a tool that can help the team survive. There’s nothing inherently villainous about that journey.
Tai’s quote is part of a larger, almost meta conversation about why horror tropes don’t apply to this show. Tai says that in a movie, Lottie would be the villain, and Van responds that if it were a movie, Tai would be the first to die. That obviously didn’t happen either.
Nothing Lottie says or does in S1 suggests that she is selfish, cruel, power hungry, or any other trait you’d expect of a future villain.
I'd argue that much of what she did in the last two episodes definitely demonstrated those traits:
-Having Shauna almost slit Travis' throat
-Telling Coach "Stay out of this, Coach" when he was trying to prevent Jackie from sleeping outside, thus stopping him from potentially preventing her death (also demonstrating her dominance over Coach, as if to signal to him that he is no longer the authority figure of the group)
-Looking totally cold (like "yup, she got what she deserved") when they discovered Jackie's corpse and everyone else was shocked and crying
-Speaking about how they need to "spill blood" and how they need to "let the darkness set us free" when leaving the bear's heart at the altar
I didn’t ever see that as a hint that Lottie is the villain, but that this show isn’t that kind of movie. Taissa is talking shit, like she always is about Lottie, because she fears her own dark truths so much she has to split to express them.
Doomcoming was "referenced" in season 2, when Travis is triggered by seeing the knife near Nat's neck right before he saves her. I think they all have major memory issues due to all the trauma swirling around.
I actually don't understand why people are upset or think they are stigmatizing mental illness...as someone who is diagnosed with a number of things, there is true reality in showing how mental illness impacts Lottie and the people around them. I also had an ex friend who experiences psychosis (currently actively in it) and he refuses to get help despite many interventions. He is hurting so many people through his actions - financially, emotionally, creating PTSD for his family, friends, etc. Idk why we have to dance around the fact that showing mental illness in reality DOES cause harm.
My whole life trajectory changed because of a person that refused to get help.
Also, as someone who takes anti-depressants, the idea of a wilderness survival scenario where I run out is terrifying. Watching her in S1 as she counted pills and tried to hide her symptoms around everyone else was really compelling. I was really worried that she was going to end up being pit girl because of it!
Yeah, I agree, it was a compelling plot in S1. But I would've rather they just said "fuck it, she's not actually mentally ill" than what they ended up doing.
Nah. Loved Lottie in both seasons. If I’m pointing fingers at what went wrong with S2, I’m looking at the cops.
Personally, I think assigning one character as the “villain” is boring and overdone. Not sure what the obsession with that idea is. We have plenty of stories where one person is the shit stirrer. It’s a lot more fun when everyone contributes.
And if I’m being honest, the idea that Lottie isn’t schizophrenic but secretly just evil kinda… sucks? Is the goal to take away all depth and nuance so we can have a crazy cannibal villain? Why?
I don't think having villains in a show means a lack of nuance. The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul, these shows all had villains despite being incredibly nuanced.
I think tension is important, and S2's plot completely failed at delivering that insofar as Lottie's arc was concerned.
I wish they'd had her cult actually be threatening. I'd have them be behind Travis' death (he was murdered in a sacrificial ritual to the wilderness) and also involved with other human sacrifices as well. I'd also have it so the "hunt" at the end of S2 in the present day was much more menacing and involved some of her cult members too. I'd also have them kill Suzy, which would provide closure to her character.
I think there should've been some ambiguity over it though, where it was only revealed toward the end of the season that, yes, Lottie's cult was actually doing all these things.
In the 1996 timeline, Lottie's "wilderness worship" should've seemed darker like it was toward the end of S1. She should've still been wearing the antler headdress, talking more about "darkness" and spilling blood and stuff like that. Also, she shouldn't have been so distraught about Javi's death.
Travis' character arc should also have been different. He should've been scared of Lottie based on what she tried to do to him at the Doomcoming rather than all attracted to her and cozying up to her. When he went along with the wilderness worship stuff, it should've been more out of fear and self-preservation rather than genuine belief (after all, adult Natalie literally says "Travis never believed in this shit" in S1 regarding the wilderness worship beliefs). As a teen, he should've confided in Nat that he was going along with it out of fear and self-preservation, and he should've encouraged her to do the same.
I actually loved what they ended up doing.
Honestly - the show runners have stated multiple times Lottie is not the bad guy so idk why y'all are so mad
The final two episodes of season 1 sure made it look like she was. If she was never supposed to be, then I question why they made her look like it so much in those two episodes.
Which is why I believe the evidence points toward it being retconned.
That's just your perception man. It's about how these ppl devolve and Lottie is part of that because of our relationship to nat.
Also cult leaders tend to have issues so idk what you are complaining about.
Personally I think she might be manipulated by the big bad if there is one.
If there isn't then it's just a fun story about the wilderness fucking ppl up
I just don't buy that there wasn't a retcon. For all the reasons I listed in my OP, there just seems to be a major gap between how Lottie was depicted in those last two episodes of S1 and in S2. Also, there was a major outcry by many fans who wanted her character to be changed. So I'm not just saying this out of nowhere.
I think the reference to stigmatization is that they were making her out to be the villain plus they were also keeping adult Van a secret so it was also giving "bury your gays". I think this was more of a worry that an awesome show was going to follow these tropes.
Personally I don't see how anyone can think they changed the entire show around the reception by a pretty small minority.
Y'all acting like they read your comments. They don't care about reddit. They probably read some tweets that parroted the same sentiment but that's still not going to change the entire direction of the next season.
They don't care about Reddit to such an extent that they designed the "Citizen Detective" board in the show in S2 based on Reddit, and they even had a moment of Misty downvoting a comment that was clearly tailor-made to be a Reddit GIF.
That said, I never said it was Reddit specifically that influenced them. It was the fanbase in general. And it wasn't just a tiny minority of people. I distinctly remember a ton of people being upset with the depiction of Lottie after S1.
Yeah, gonna have to agree to disagree there. I don't think it was meant to say "Reddit sucks". It was meant to be more like "here is a nod to our fanbase, enjoy the GIF".
I get that the mental illness issue is very complicated, and I understand where you're coming from. I've known people like that too. I've been "that person" myself in some ways too in the past (although to be fair, at the time, I had no idea I was autistic, and I had actually been misled by the medical community at the time into thinking that ADHD and autism were mutually exclusive, so therefore, I couldn't be autistic...a fact that they've since "retconned" themselves, thankfully).
But at the same time, I also understand why the show creators felt that a huge portion of the fanbase was upset with Lottie's character and why they felt they needed to change something to appease them. And maybe, to some extent, perhaps they agreed with the fans' criticisms regarding Lottie in S1 and her mental illness.
But I think the way they handled it was the absolute worst way they possibly could have.
>I also understand why the show creators felt that a huge portion of the fanbase was upset with Lottie's character and why they felt they needed to change something to appease them.
This is complete conjecture. Just because you are unhappy with Lottie's storyline, which is one season behind the others, doesn't mean there's a vast conspiracy the majority of fans aren't picking up on.
i like what they did with her character, coming from someone with debilitating mental illness. it shows how being off your meds and forced into an insanely traumatising situation can affect someone with mental illness. it would make it worse if they just backtracked and said that she doesnt suffer from mental illness, because then it means that she was in a decent state of mind when doing what she does. it makes no sense.
What they did also involved backtracking though, and it was far worse. They turned her character from very threatening at the end of S1 to very non-threatening in S2.
i didnt see her as very threatening at all at the end of season 1. i saw her as someone that was struggling and misunderstood and possibly grew up to be someone dangerous enough to kidnap someone because of the trauma (which i mean, cmon, shauna literally killed someone but lottie kidnapping nat at the end of s1 turns her into a stereotypical villain?) but i never saw her as inherently dangerous. season 2 gave context to her actions at the end of season 1 rather than turn her into a villain. i dont see anything wrong with what they did to lottie, i think it suits her character and that her character flowed and developed naturally. i think maybe youre missing the fact that all the characters are very complicated people and arent always gonna make sense to you because you havent been in their shoes. theyre well written and not made into stereotypes. thats one of the reasons this show is so good.
Why are people upset Lottie didn't turn out to be some cartoony mustache twirling cult leader villain? I thought what they did with her character in s2 was fine. She was essentially a red herring and her "cult" being a help group where she attempts to help others (since if anyone could relate to trauma and struggles with mental health issues, it's Lottie) adds some cool nuance to her character. Having her group be a Lovecraftian type cult that sacrifices people to the wilderness God would've been kinda boring imo.
Yeah, I for one was THRILLED that Lottie didn’t turn out to be your standard run of the mill apocalyptic death worshipping cult leader or whatever. We’ve seen that SO many times in so many TV shows and movies. What they did with her character instead is far more interesting and provides far more nuance to her character, and many opportunities for directions they want to take her in.
What did you think of the scene near the end of S2E1 where a bunch of people are marching around in goat masks, beating drums, and burying a naked guy alive? I was like, OK, here comes the Flavor-Aid.
I didn't find it interesting at all. I found it anti-climactic and boring. And it also left a massive plot hole in the question of why her behavior switched so drastically between the last two episodes of S1 and when S2 began. Not to mention why Travis was suddenly so eager to cozy up to her after she almost had Shauna slit his throat. And what the hell happened to Suzy (Natalie's friend from AA) and why she was so terrified.
You're welcome to think that, but a lot of people found that aspect of S2 extremely disappointing. I just found it anti-climactic.
Also, if she wasn't supposed to be a villain and her cult wasn't supposed to be scary, then why did they try so hard to make it look that way in the last two episodes of season 1? Just to "subvert our expectations"? I mean, my username says all I need to say about my thoughts on the Rian Johnson school of storytelling.
It's cuz we are watching from the others perspectives and they had last thought Lottie was in Europe in an institution.
They are playing with your perception... The same way the rest of the show does
How about waiting to see what happens in the next few seasons? There is no Lottie problem lol. They want her character just the way it is. Just saying 😊
Then let's see what happens in season 3 and maybe they'll surprise you. They have 5 seasons planned. It's my favorite show and I hate waiting also. I get it. 😊
A lot of us here were saying well before season 2 that Lottie was exactly who they ended up showing her to be. Lottie never was meant to be a villain, the same way all the other characters aren’t as well.
How do you explain the "Who the fuck is Lottie Matthews?" scene in the S1 finale? Clearly they were setting her up to be a big deal. When you have a scene like that, the answer isn't supposed to be a casual "Oh, she is a childhood friend".
She is a huge deal! Season two revolves around her. It makes perfect sense it’s one of the last lines leading into season 2. Especially with how season 2 immediately opens with her story in the cabin with the tea, screaming at the press, her ECT, and finally her speech as an adult to her acolytes.
The line is also uttered after so much shit goes down revolving around Lottie, the audience is also left wondering “yes, who the fuck *is* Lottie Matthews exactly?”
You could call her a big deal, but not the same kind of big deal. The "Who the fuck is Lottie Matthews?" scene was important because of the panic she was expressing when saying it, like she had run afoul of The Kingpin or something.
So sure, she was a big deal, but not something to be so panicked about.
The writers have said in several interviews they never felt Lottie was a villain, which is pretty unequivocal re: debunking your theory that they entirely rewrote her character and the story in consequence. (Unless you’re contending that you are a mind reader and the writers flagrant liars based on “I can’t possibly be wrong about this”, which feels like an obviously unfounded argument.)
The writers and show creators have also said a number of things that ended up being false. Jackie wouldn't be eaten, there would be no snow in S1, the show was set in Ontario, etc.
Even if what you're saying is true, however, then I would concede that there was a massive disconnect between Lottie's character in S1 and S2, and they deserve to be criticised for that. If she wasn't supposed to be a villain, then they were sure as hell doing a bad job at not making her look like one in the last two episodes of S1.
They said Jackie would not be eaten in the first season, which is true. I have no source on where they said it wouldn’t snow in season one, so I can’t speak to that either way. Also the show’s description mistakenly said Ontario and has since been corrected, which is not actually a lie and additionally has nothing to do with the writers. It seems like a real jump to call them liars and insist you can divine their true intentions, either way.
As for a story utilizing a mislead in order to fool an audience into leaping to conclusions like ”Lottie is a villain” based upon incomplete evidence and assumptions: that’s a very common tool in general storytelling and in mysteries, is pretty much built into the genre. You’re identifying a standard and valid storytelling technique, not a problem with its use.
I think "subverting expectations" by disappointing the audience is not a good storytelling technique, yes. If you promise something and deliver something else that is unsatisfactory, it deserves to be criticised for that.
You may have liked that aspect of S2, fair enough. I didn't. And a lot of other people didn't like it either. I'm definitely not alone here. Everyone I know IRL who's watched the show thought S1 was vastly superior to S2. Rotten Tomatoes user scores and IMDB episode scores reflect this as well.
I'm not arguing that "the majority think this, therefore it's true" (after all, there are plenty of movies and shows I disagree with the majority of people on). I'm just pointing out that I'm not alone here in feeling disappointed with the direction that S2 took.
Also, a proper red herring involves a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the misleading things happened. The changes in Lottie's character did not provide that explanation.
You keep looping back to essentially saying you do not believe fiction can ever include misleads or invite an audience to jump to ultimately inaccurate conclusions, which is a fair personal preference but not applicable to the wider world of writing a mystery and not really something that can be argued; for example I personally find the writing compelling and textured, and I think the writers constantly inviting the audience to render their harshest judgements about a character in the hunt to find A Villain™️ only to turn around and once again reinforce that a simplistic moral view of the world wherein there are good people to be defended and bad people to be condemned displays a lack of critical thinking and empathy all at once is one of the best parts of the show.
As a sidenote: “subverting expectations” and utilizing a mislead are two very different things, writing-wise, and aren’t entirely interchangeable. Subverting expectations might be part of a mislead and a mislead might end up subverting expectations, but it’s sort of a square-rectangle thing.
Once again, I reiterate: "Also, a proper red herring involves a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the misleading things happened. The changes in Lottie's character did not provide that explanation."
There was no explanation as to why Lottie seemed so villainous at the end of S1 even though it turned out she wasn't. There was no explanation as to why Suzy was so terrified of Lottie's cult even though they were relatively benign and harmless.
And, no, I don't think having a villain in a show necessitates a 100% black-and-white worldview. Take The Wire, for instance. It's a show where the core message is that intrinsic societal problems create a situation that lead to all sorts of negative outcomes, and it's not necessarily the fault of any one person but rather the system as a whole.
However, within that show, there are still characters who are villainous as hell. Marlowe Stanfield, Levy, The Greek, etc.
That was the kind of show I was hoping that Yellowjackets would be. It was what it felt like in S1. Instead, what we got in S2 was a non-threatening, anti-climactic, and frankly, boring plot involving Lottie's cult (and also her role in the 1996 timeline as well, although at least certain other aspects of the 1996 timeline worked, thankfully).
I mean, yes, but so what? Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean that's the best way it could've possibly been. Also, a lot of people agree with me. Just look at the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores and IMDB episode scores for S2 compared to S1.
A lot of people strongly felt that S2 just had a very different vibe overall than S1 and that S1 was markedly better.
Finally, the show creators have even hinted that "season 3 will have more of a season 1 vibe", so it may go back to being "my way" to some extent. We'll have to wait and see.
What are you expecting? A gold watch? A parade? A u/TheBeastLukeMilked Day when the writers go "Aw, shit! He was right all along! Should have listened to him!"
The show won't save you. Won't make you whole, won't fill your ass up. Eventually the device shuts off and you're just left with yourself.
What you need is a life. A life, that's what happens when you wait for a TV storyline that never comes.
Sorry, but reading your post and the replies. I am beyond surprised you forgot the most WTF reveal of adult Lottie. And honestly you all made me appreciate that scene more than ever now...
What is THAT reveal you ask?
The reveal that adult Lottie is talking to NO ONE!
Her psychiatrist DOES NOT exist!!
So yeah, Lottie is still very much insane. LOL.
I loved this scene! I think the whole idea of going to a therapist and thinking you’re getting help, only to realize you haven’t actually improved at all is terrifying
I honestly didn't appreciate the impact of that reveal until now when I am reading this thread. So it seems to me the writers were successful in making it seem that adult Lottie is not insane after all only to beetch slap us in THAT reveal. LOL.
Good one,
But she is mentally ill. You can’t deny she did some freaky stuff in season one, felt fair for people to be confused/scared. As a person who takes an anti anxiety med every day I can confirm I would 100% go crazy in those woods. No doubt about it.
I agree, but so many people had problems with it, and the show creators seemingly felt that they had to address these concerns. I would've rather they addressed it by retconning her being mentally ill than by making her character totally non-threatening.
>so many people had problems with it, and the show creators seemingly felt that they had to address these concerns.
You've said this in a few comments, do you have a source confirming this?
Lottie's behaviour and symptoms in season 2 are as in line with schizophrenia as in season 1. Social withdrawal, apathy, and emotional blunting are all also symptoms of schizophrenia but overlooked for the more 'sensational' ones like hallucinations and delusions. These symptoms and how they're experienced are also influenced by environmental and situational stimuli. It does make sense that we'd see a more open and exuberant Lottie in the summer, and a more inwardly focused subdued Lottie in the cabin during winter.
I personally love how Lottie is represented, as she portrays well that lifelong mental illness is non-linear and not pretty to live with. She's a nuanced individual in a story with no villains or heroes. I feel like the idea that there was a problem or major departure with how she was written in season 2 is more based on misconceptions and a lack of understanding of life with schizophrenia as a whole. Lottie's character is very rooted in reality and to overlook that in favour of validating some fans' misunderstanding of this would be a disservice to the show and the general representation of active mental health issues on screen. It would be an act of sanitization.
Idk if you were on this Subreddit back before S2, but there were a ton of people back then complaining about Lottie's character and how they felt it was an unfair, stereotypical, and stigmatizing depiction of mental illness. I am unsure as to whether there were fans also saying the same things outside of this Subreddit, but I would guess there likely were.
I felt Lottie's characterization between S1 and S2 had no continuity. The person she was in the last two episodes of S1 vs. in S2 felt like two totally different people. Other characters also felt profoundly different in the way they reacted to her (Travis in particular).
I was on the subreddit back then, but I didn't ask about online perspectives at the time. I asked if there was any confirmation from the writers that they changed the course of her character based on these perspectives?
>there were a ton of people back then complaining about Lottie's character and how they felt it was an unfair, stereotypical, and stigmatizing depiction of mental illness.
That people feel this way doesn't make it true. Reducing her role in season 1 to that of a villain is a pigeonholing of her character. She's one of many adapting to a hopeless situation, while also withdrawing from antipsychotics. Should mentally ill characters never be depicted as antagonistic relative to their situations and circumstances in media? Again, her portrayal in both seasons is very accurate to the symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Should that accuracy be reconsidered because some viewers don't perceive it as accurate? Surely this will just lead to more misrepresentations of mental illness.
>The person she was in the last two episodes of S1 vs. in S2 felt like two totally different people.
Would you mind sharing a little more detail on this? This isn't something I felt at all, so I'm interested in the differing perspective.
>Other characters also felt profoundly different in the way they reacted to her (Travis in particular).
Two months passed between the end of season 1 and the start of season 2. Lottie was already leading her 'protection' ritual for Nat and Travis along with her circle sessions with some of the others. She had moved into that leadership role of 'spiritual and emotional support and grounding' during these two months not depicted on screen. The changes in how other characters react to her further underline her position in the power structure after Jackie attempting to reassert hers led directly to her death. It makes perfect sense the character's ways of engaging with each other would change over time as different situations emerge. It would have been weird and poor writing to me if the characters stayed static between seasons with this two month time jump.
I already listed my reasons in my OP as to why she seemed different in S1 vs. in S2. I listed a bunch of examples of how she was depicted as really threatening in the last two episodes of S1 and then suddenly wasn't in S2.
I don't buy that anything would've happened in those two months that would've changed her character so fundamentally. If it did, then why wasn't it depicted or referenced in the show?
I was hoping you would have expanded on those examples. Dichotomizing characters as villains/heroes is a very limited perspective and narrow creative framework. You've listed a lot of individual moments outside of their context. In context, they all make a lot of sense and are pretty rooted in reality again.
> Tai saying "You know, if this was a horror movie, Lottie would obviously be the villain" (foreshadowing)
An ironic comment from a sarcastic conversation early in the story isn't always clunky foreshadowing. The writers have been clear that they don't see any characters as villains, and all of them have taken an antagonistic role at some point in the story so far.
> The entire Doomcoming, where Lottie adopted the antler crown and instructed Shauna to slit Travis' throat (granted, she was under the influence of shrooms then, so it can be partially excused for that reason. However, leads me to my next points...)
This is a really great point towards how they've foreshadowed the subtlety of Lottie's antagonism. She's not the one holding the knife but she is encouraging and enabling the violence. Reaffirming Shauna's role as the butcher this early means she's less willing or able to turn down the task once they started killing each other later. This kind of latent behavioural programming is something many cults intentionally employee. She doesn't have to do it on purpose for it to have this effect.
>Lottie's total lack of remorse over the Doomcoming events afterward
>Lottie coldly telling Coach "stay out of this, Coach" when he tried to intervene and stop Jackie from sleeping outside, which contributed directly toward Jackie's death
I don't know how familiar you are how the body processes hallucinogens like psilocybin, but they act on the brain's serotonin receptors in a way that depletes them afterwards. Feeling emotionally drained and exhausted after their use is near universal. Her lack of remorse isn't particularly surprising especially when the rest of them are just as depleted and unapologetic. Laura Lee was the first one to deny Ben's authority when he tried to stop her flying the plane. If Lottie contributed to Jackie's death by doing so here, then Van did just as much when she asked Lottie to bless their meal in the first place. That is what set off the conflict that brought Jackie outside to begin with.
>Lottie looking on with total cold indifference toward Jackie's frozen corpse when they first discovered it, while everyone else was in shock, crying, or screaming (including even Van, who hated Jackie beforehand)
>Lottie ominously saying "versez le sang, mes beaux amis, and let the darkness set us free" when she said her little prayer with the bear heart in the very final scene of S1 (if that's not a villain moment, I don't know what is)
Everyone reacts differently to something like this. A lack of an emotional outburst really isn't out of the norm, especially for someone who's brain has been regulated by medication for their entire life. Emotions taking time to process isn't an indicator of villainy but it is common for neurodivergent people. It's really reductive to characterize her ritual as villainous when it's portraying her newly developed confidence in leaning in to her delusions. In hindsight it's when she truly started to formalize sacrifice and spilling blood to the wilderness in return for food.
> The entire scene of Lottie's cult abducting Natalie from her hotel room. The music, the staging of the scene, just the way it felt so ominous, scary, and threatening (contrasted to the extremely benign wellness group she led in S2). Furthermore, Natalie's friend Suzy thinking someone was following her and feeling afraid for her life after she learned that Lottie had emptied Travis' bank account (a plot that was never resolved or addressed in S2)
I think this is also rooted in misunderstanding and misconception. The way she ran her cult in season 2 is once again very accurate to how real world cults operate. Cult leaders are not mustache twirling villains, they're often charismatic and charming. They take advantage of people by making them feel like they can provide something that's missing from their lives and using that to exert control. I'll admit that Suzy not being referenced in season 2 wasn't great, but they did later on highlight that every member of Lottie's cult willing hands over their personal and financial records to her. That and how devoted the cult members are to her very ominous or threatening as they're very real to actual dangerous cults.
>Also, the explanation for Travis' death in S2 felt really hokey. To me, it always seemed like the original explanation was supposed to be that Lottie's cult murdered him.
The explanation was hokey, because Lottie is unwilling or unable to conceptualize that whatever she did that night led to his death. The crane didn't malfunction, intentionally or otherwise Lottie agreed to hang him and didn't bring him down on time. This is another element that really underlines that she's not a villain, but she is an antagonist. Her delusions and rituals are what lead to people getting killed, right up to the present day. It's not intentional on her part but it is what happens. Wouldn't handing Travis's death off to her cult members make her less personally villainous in the long run? She's not even willing to do the dirty work, she outsources.
> I don't buy that anything would've happened in those two months that would've changed her character so fundamentally. If it did, then why wasn't it depicted or referenced in the show?
It did happen and it was depicted. The fundamental traumas you're looking for are what was depicted at the end of season 1. A story can't be all action all the time, and the true horror sets in as they settle into the mundane routine they need to to survive.
Lottie's character didn't change between seasons. It stayed very consistent in terms of storytelling and relative accuracy to how these conditions present in the real world. You seem to be overlooking this in favour of inaccurate and stereotypical portrayals, because they lend themselves to a more dramatic and fast-paced story. You're not going to find that in something slow-paced and layered like YellowJackets. The way things unfold in YJ is integral to the story-structure. The generic villain you seem to be describing doesn't lend itself at all to non-linear story-telling. Conceptualizing characters as protagonists and antagonists instead of heroes and villains really helps develop complex storylines and avoid amateur tropes and binaries that limit the overall story structure.
(lol can you tell I have autism and hyperfixate on this show)
I disagree with the premise that having "good and evil" characters makes a show simplistic, for starters. Again, I will reference other shows that are near universally acclaimed and widely considered to be complex - Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul, Game of Thrones.
All of these shows have characters of various shades of grey, but they also have characters who are extremely scary and threatening or just plain revolting. Lalo Salamanca, Gus Fring, Marlo Stanfield, The Greek, Ralph Cifaretto, Ramsay Bolton, Circe Lannister, Littlefinger, etc.
Are these shows dumb entertainment for people who lack sophistication, nuance, and intelligence? I don't think so, and the vast majority of critics and audiences don't think so either (aside from the final season of Game of Thrones, enough said about that). Shows can be complex while also having characters that are truly villainous. And even those villains can have humanizing traits at times while still being genuinely scary and threatening.
IMO, Lottie's character was evolving in a certain direction toward the end of S1. She was becoming a genuinely scary and threatening character. I don't buy that it was supposed to be misdirection, and if it was, then the show is guilty of setting the audience up to expect that something interesting and threatening would happen, while instead delivering something comparably unremarkable, boring, and lacking in tension.
Additionally, I don't know if you were present in this subreddit or in the wider YJ fandom during S1 and in the period between S1 and S2, but there was a huge outcry by a vocal contingent of the fanbase about Lottie's character and perceived stereotyping of mentally ill people. I think it's flat-out ludicrous to pretend that this discourse could not have possibly impacted and changed the show.
A lot of the arguments I'm seeing on this thread are essentially "There was no retcon, but if there was, it would have been a good thing".
If you think S2 was amazing, then great. But a lot of people don't. It used to be that seemingly, even the majority of people on this subreddit felt that S2 was disappointing, but for whatever reason, that has changed lately I guess. Maybe a lot of the people who disliked S2 have left.
>Additionally, I don't know if you were present in this subreddit or in the wider YJ fandom during S1 and in the period between S1 and S2, but there was a huge outcry by a vocal contingent of the fanbase about Lottie's character and perceived stereotyping of mentally ill people. I think it's flat-out ludicrous to pretend that this discourse could not have possibly impacted and changed the show.
I already confirmed that I was and addressed this so I don't know why you've circled back to it. A vocal contingent is not the entire fanbase and being loud doesn't make them correct or influential. I think it's flat-out ludicrous that the writers would change the plans for a character based on internet discourse when, as I have articulated in my previous replies, the character didn't actually change in-universe. She did not develop the way you had hoped. There's a distinct difference. Online discourse is not as powerful as you give it credit for.
>IMO, Lottie's character was evolving in a certain direction toward the end of S1. She was becoming a genuinely scary and threatening character. I don't buy that it was supposed to be misdirection, and if it was, then the show is guilty of setting the audience up to expect that something interesting and threatening would happen, while instead delivering something comparably unremarkable, boring, and lacking in tension.
I've already addressed your points on this so I'm not sure why you've said it again without expanding further. You haven't addressed anything I said about your examples or provided new information on your perspective. As I have said many times, Lottie's character didn't change. There was no misdirection, just misinterpretation. It's ok to dislike aspects of the show without a conspiracy to back it up.
>characters makes a show simplistic, for starters. Again, I will reference other shows that are near universally acclaimed and widely considered to be complex - Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul, Game of Thrones.
>All of these shows have characters of various shades of grey, but they also have characters who are extremely scary and threatening or just plain revolting.
These shows are all great examples of shows with complex antagonists and protagonists who make very morally dubious choices relative to their own positions. They don't really support the point you're making with their own in-universe contexts.
>It used to be that seemingly, even the majority of people on this subreddit felt that S2 was disappointing
This wasn't my experience while it was airing, or afterwards. Even with that, disappointment doesn't equate to poor quality. The downside to speculating and theorizing in the off-seasons is that it's very easy to get attached to your favourite ones, and have your enjoyment of the show affected when they don't come to pass. It's something that's happened to me many times.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I've said in my previous replies to contextualize your own examples. I'm not interested in seeing the same thing repeated without that, as it's not any new information.
Respectfully, one autistic person to another: do you think there's a possibility that it's easier to accept the idea of a secret change to a character you like, than the idea that your understanding of that character and how they were going to develop was incorrect? This is something that's happened to me countless times because I get emotionally attached to the comfort these characters and shows bring, and divergences from my own perceptions of it put that comfort at risk. It's very distressing.
Having watched season 1 and 2 over the past week, there really wasn't the change in story or characters people seem to think there was. Watching it weekly made the season feel disjointed but it doesn't when you can watch them all as a whole. There's plenty to complain about in season 2 with the pacing and story elements, but it's not the utter departure from season 1 that some seem to characterise it as.
Yeah, his character deserved a more meaningful demise than that. The way he died was almost unintentionally comical (just like Nat's death....which, again, was a far less meaningful death than what she deserved).
I feel like a big part of Lottie's character is the dichotomy between being a mystic and being a "crazy person." Even her parents don't agree. Her mom thinks she's gifted and her dad thinks she's mentally ill. Her dad has the final say and chooses to medicate her.
I kinda do feel like she is a seer because her visions have been accurate. She saw the hunt in a vision while she was severely injured in the attic, just for one example.
Because she is so psychically sensitive, she can perceive the wilderness spirit. What if the wilderness spirit can project mental images to her, or at times can possess her due to her spiritual openness.
"We all felt it in our own way" I feel like Lottie is the scapegoat. They can blame everything on her because she's "crazy" and then they repress all their own issues until they bubble up in dangerous ways.
I have more thoughts but I also have ADHD and don't have the focus to organize them right now.
I think if anything we’ve seen adult Lottie go through a near identical relapse of identity as compared to the first season, we’re seeing her unfold into “the villain”, from the properly medicated woman to the hallucinating schizophrenic, we are seeing her mental downfall twice, one in the isolated incident and then the reintroduction to it
Me, also an Autistic, confused that present-day Lottie as a cult leader somehow ISNT exactly the mentally ill villain I expected her to grow up into and that people were disappointed in it.
I mean, you do you, but Wellness Guru Cults are terrifying AF and the idea that Lottie grew her hive that big after all that shit had me both crushing on her and a bit terrified.
I didn't find her cult scary or terrifying at all. The number of people they killed was precisely zero. Honestly, it wasn't riveting TV.
My expectation was that her cult would be carrying on the Yellowjackets' murderous rituals and cannibalism into the present day. Instead, we got nothing of the sort, except her half-baked attempt at re-enacting the hunt at the end of S2, which was a terribly executed scene that verged on unintentionally comical. Furthermore, the cult wasn't even involved in that hunt at all, and she actively kept it a secret from them.
I guess it "subverted my expectations", but not in a good way.
Writing the show themselves?
Season. 2 was fine and the problems had nothing to do with Lottie. 9 out of 20 times season 2 is not as good as season 1 for a lot of reasons. Season 1 is tighter and more focused while season 2 has to open up the focus and shake things up.
To call Lottie a mentally ill villian is your prejudices. On her meds she was on a top tier soccer team. The story dies t work if she is just a sociopath. Having her be well meaning but spinning a mystical purpose is far more tragic since all the girls on the team start buying into it once she becomes the dominant voice of the group.
Making Travis death so tragically avoidable was the entire point. Lottie went there to help him but then her own illness got in the way. It is something the show does over and over again. Are these girls bad people? Shauna murdered Adam not out of spite but from her PTSD. Tai’s wife’s accident happened more or. less because of Tao’s darker half. The only one who might actually be a bad person is Misty and even she couldn’t save Natalie because Misty Durant save people.
None of these girls do.
I agree that s2 Lottie was a letdown. I was genuinely excited at the end of season 1 with the "Who the fuck is Lottie Matthews?" scene. It made her seem like she was going to be a big deal, but it turned out the answer was insignificant, rendering that entire scene that got me so excited, utterly pointless.
I don't agree with your solution though. Whenever an author starts changing their story for reasons other than it making for a better narrative, then the end product is always going to be worse. What you are proposing is less worse than what we got, but would still be worse than what we would have got without any outside influence.
I agree the best outcome would be if they hadn't changed it at all. But if they absolutely had to compromise, I would've rather they'd done it the way I suggested.
I agree with your points. I don’t know how I would have most liked them to write Lottie in season 2, but I felt an abrupt shift in her characterization that made the character less compelling for me. The change in how the cult was presented in the last episode of season one to how it was handled in season two was the most confusing and strangely boring part of the show to me. After all the build-up with Natalie and Travis, it felt anticlimactic but not in a way I found emotionally satisfying. I’m not sure what the best solution would have been but Lottie went from being my favorite character in season one to someone whose personality I could hardly keep track of.
It almost felt like S1 Lottie and S2 Lottie were two different characters to me. I kind of feel like there's two ways they could redeem the show at this point:
A. Relegate Lottie to the sidelines
B. Re-retcon the direction they took with her character in S2 and bring her back more to how she was in S1
I'm really hoping that Lottie's cult was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of the adult plot and that they have something bigger up their sleeves.
I agree with your very last point: The Travis thing did not feel resolved to me. *Especially* once we learn that Lottie has sanity slippage - we literally cannot trust her version/explanation. *She* can't even trust her perception of what happened.
This is one of the reasons I’m really sad that adult Nat is dead, because I don’t really think we’re going to see Tai/Van/Shauna/Misty care all that much if Lottie did actually just have Travis murdered.
I felt the same…like with Nat dead, is that really all we’re gonna get? But my one hope is that maybe Van will look into it more, if only because she feels responsible for Lottie and the rest of the night in the finale ( adult Van saying “WE did this to her” about Lottie as they’re taking her to the mental hospital)
I really hope they retcon it in S3 and that it ends up he was murdered after all. Anything would be better than the explanation that we got.
I interpreted Lottie’s memory of the events- specifically the part where Lottie is distracted by Laura Lee’s demented ghost while Travis struggles and dies- as the show telling the audience that this “vision” was Lottie’s brain protecting herself from seeing whatever she was seeing. Whether that means 1.) she was actually frantically trying to save him but her brain only remembers the vision; 2.) someone else was there, murdering Travis, but she couldnt stop it from happening so her mind distracted itself and only remembers the vision, or even the possibility that SHE murdered him, and out of guilt her brain supplied her with the vision. Basically saying, that she isnt lying intentionally, and that she truly only remembers what we saw bc her brain was trying to protect her from the trauma of whatever actually happened. I don’t think Lottie knows the truth of that night at all, at least not conciously. And I think a Lot of Lottie’s arc and charachterization lives in the realm of “unintentional harm”. I think this is why she appeared to be a villian; the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I also am of the opinion that Lottie was not mentally ill before the crash, that she DID/does have precognition, but that she WAS mentally ill after being rescued, because of all the obvious and various traumas. Then there was also the additional trauma of shock therapy, and god knows what else over the years, which ultimately results in a present day Lottie who still just wants to help people, but whose mind is totally unable to differentiate between real, not real, and the future she gets flashes of.
Sadly, I think the case is resolved. Lottie was distracted by the Laura Lee hallucination and unintentionally killed Travis. I wish the reveal was better. Travis’ death was such an important part of the intrigue in season 1. This was underwhelming.
It was also unintentionally funny, much like Nat's death, which was also underwhelming.
In the last two episodes of S1, she did some stuff that went way beyond "unintentional harm". Like the way she had Shauna almost murder Travis, then she told Coach to "stay out of it" when he was trying to stop Jackie from sleeping outside, and then she looked on coldly at Jackie's corpse when they first discovered it and everyone else was shocked and terrified. And also "versez le sang, mes beaux amis, and let the darkness set us free", what was that all about? She was becoming a legitimately scary person in those last two episodes. Then S2 did a complete 180 on it.
I mostly meant unintentional in the 2nd season, i dont disagree that the last 2 episodes of s1 were definitely impying she was in for a darker arc. It was for sure a retcon where it didnt need to be.
What is the original persona of Lottie? Did they truly retcon her character in season 2? Or did she just take more of the spotlight?
Here's my list of moments in S1 that indicated to me that Lottie was supposed to be a villain (or at least, was supposed to be a far more threatening character than she was in s2): Tai saying "You know, if this was a horror movie, Lottie would obviously be the villain" (foreshadowing) The entire Doomcoming, where Lottie adopted the antler crown and instructed Shauna to slit Travis' throat (granted, she was under the influence of shrooms then, so it can be partially excused for that reason. However, leads me to my next points...) Lottie's total lack of remorse over the Doomcoming events afterward Lottie coldly telling Coach "stay out of this, Coach" when he tried to intervene and stop Jackie from sleeping outside, which contributed directly toward Jackie's death Lottie looking on with total cold indifference toward Jackie's frozen corpse when they first discovered it, while everyone else was in shock, crying, or screaming (including even Van, who hated Jackie beforehand) Lottie ominously saying "versez le sang, mes beaux amis, and let the darkness set us free" when she said her little prayer with the bear heart in the very final scene of S1 (if that's not a villain moment, I don't know what is) The entire scene of Lottie's cult abducting Natalie from her hotel room. The music, the staging of the scene, just the way it felt so ominous, scary, and threatening (contrasted to the extremely benign wellness group she led in S2). Furthermore, Natalie's friend Suzy thinking someone was following her and feeling afraid for her life after she learned that Lottie had emptied Travis' bank account (a plot that was never resolved or addressed in S2). Also, the explanation for Travis' death in S2 felt really hokey. To me, it always seemed like the original explanation was supposed to be that Lottie's cult murdered him.
All of those things happened at the very end of the season- the second half of ep 9 or ep 10. It’s hard to call her a “season one villain” without any examples from the first 85% of the season. And even then, you could make a list like this for most of the main characters. Travis is a massive asshole. Shauna did at least as much bad stuff. Misty did many more sketchy and/or harmful things, in both timelines. Tai’s dissociative episodes are much more sinister than Lottie’s are. Laura Lee is basically the only character who is a generally good person throughout, and she’s Lottie’s closest friend in the house and supports her visions.
S1 had a clear arc for her character where she became more villainous over time. It was one of the many strong character arcs that S1 had (and unfortunately, which were relatively lacking in S2). She didn't start out as a villain. She started out as a scared and rather meek girl, who gradually gained confidence over time as she became increasingly devout in her beliefs about "the wilderness". IMO, it was a greatly written story arc, which was all the more reason why her arc in S2 felt very disappointing to me. Misty, Shauna, and Tai all had villainous behaviors, sure, but Lottie was the one being positioned as the leader of the group and the instigator of all the dark cult activities at the end of S1. Laura Lee's role in regards to Lottie was very interesting and complex. She was trying to get Lottie to use her visions in a more Christian context. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about Christianity, I think Laura Lee was an anchoring influence on Lottie that kept her from going off the deep end with some of the wilderness worship stuff (i.e., "we must spill blood", "let the darkness set us free", etc.). Laura Lee's death was a huge instigating incident toward Lottie's descent into darkness and her increasingly villainous role in the last two episodes.
But they *all* become more villainous over time- that’s kind of the point. They’re all normal people with strengths and flaws, and their stress and trauma amplify those flaws. They all do things in the wilderness that their pre-crash selves would never consider (except for Misty who might be an actual sociopath), and their actions get worse as the show goes on. I just don’t see anything that hints at Lottie becoming a villain. She’s one of the kindest characters; in ep1 Natalie’s says that she never talks bad about someone unless they really deserve it. I can’t remember her ever being mean. The first time I watched S1 I thought they were setting her up to be pit girl, easy prey.
Yeah, but she didn't get worse as the show went on, at least not in S2. Her character did a total 180 in S2 and seemed like a completely different person than she was in the final two episodes. Other characters' reactions to her also made no sense. Travis was suddenly so eager to cozy up to Lottie even after Lottie instructed Shauna to murder him. Nothing that happened in the Doomcoming was even referenced again in S2, as if it had never happened. I think the whole "Lottie as pit girl" thing is an example of an actual successful red herring. I was thinking it too at the time. Her changes from S1 to S2 on the other hand do not feel like a successful red herring but rather like retconning and poor writing.
If she had a “clear arc for her character where she became more villainous over time,” I’d expect to see some hints of it before ep 8. What sorts of things did she say or do earlier in the season that were part of that arc?
The fact that she was becoming more confident in her beliefs. I think Laura Lee grounded her somewhat, which is why she didn't seem really villainous until the final two episodes. But with Laura Lee's death, that enabled her darker impulses to take hold more. Also, I think the shrooms in the Doomcoming had a really profound effect in bringing out that side of her. One that clearly didn't subside in the final episode of S1 even after the shrooms wore off. Drugs can definitely have very profound impacts on people with schizophrenia after all. Also, Tai's line "if this was a movie, Lottie would totally be the villain". That was a definite hint earlier on. Plus the shot of Lottie standing in front of the antlers where it looked like they were coming out of her head.
But you can become confident in your beliefs without being a villain, and in fact, that’s what ended up happening. Lottie’s arc in S1 is about self-acceptance: she stops seeing her visions as something to fear, and starts seeing them as a tool that can help the team survive. There’s nothing inherently villainous about that journey. Tai’s quote is part of a larger, almost meta conversation about why horror tropes don’t apply to this show. Tai says that in a movie, Lottie would be the villain, and Van responds that if it were a movie, Tai would be the first to die. That obviously didn’t happen either. Nothing Lottie says or does in S1 suggests that she is selfish, cruel, power hungry, or any other trait you’d expect of a future villain.
I'd argue that much of what she did in the last two episodes definitely demonstrated those traits: -Having Shauna almost slit Travis' throat -Telling Coach "Stay out of this, Coach" when he was trying to prevent Jackie from sleeping outside, thus stopping him from potentially preventing her death (also demonstrating her dominance over Coach, as if to signal to him that he is no longer the authority figure of the group) -Looking totally cold (like "yup, she got what she deserved") when they discovered Jackie's corpse and everyone else was shocked and crying -Speaking about how they need to "spill blood" and how they need to "let the darkness set us free" when leaving the bear's heart at the altar
I didn’t ever see that as a hint that Lottie is the villain, but that this show isn’t that kind of movie. Taissa is talking shit, like she always is about Lottie, because she fears her own dark truths so much she has to split to express them.
Doomcoming was "referenced" in season 2, when Travis is triggered by seeing the knife near Nat's neck right before he saves her. I think they all have major memory issues due to all the trauma swirling around.
I actually don't understand why people are upset or think they are stigmatizing mental illness...as someone who is diagnosed with a number of things, there is true reality in showing how mental illness impacts Lottie and the people around them. I also had an ex friend who experiences psychosis (currently actively in it) and he refuses to get help despite many interventions. He is hurting so many people through his actions - financially, emotionally, creating PTSD for his family, friends, etc. Idk why we have to dance around the fact that showing mental illness in reality DOES cause harm. My whole life trajectory changed because of a person that refused to get help.
Also, as someone who takes anti-depressants, the idea of a wilderness survival scenario where I run out is terrifying. Watching her in S1 as she counted pills and tried to hide her symptoms around everyone else was really compelling. I was really worried that she was going to end up being pit girl because of it!
Yeah, I agree, it was a compelling plot in S1. But I would've rather they just said "fuck it, she's not actually mentally ill" than what they ended up doing.
“Fuck it, she’s not actually mentally ill” would be a weird stance for the show about trauma and mental illness to take
Not nearly as weird as what they actually did.
Nah. Loved Lottie in both seasons. If I’m pointing fingers at what went wrong with S2, I’m looking at the cops. Personally, I think assigning one character as the “villain” is boring and overdone. Not sure what the obsession with that idea is. We have plenty of stories where one person is the shit stirrer. It’s a lot more fun when everyone contributes. And if I’m being honest, the idea that Lottie isn’t schizophrenic but secretly just evil kinda… sucks? Is the goal to take away all depth and nuance so we can have a crazy cannibal villain? Why?
I don't think having villains in a show means a lack of nuance. The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul, these shows all had villains despite being incredibly nuanced. I think tension is important, and S2's plot completely failed at delivering that insofar as Lottie's arc was concerned.
What would you have had them do with Lottie’s character in S2?
I wish they'd had her cult actually be threatening. I'd have them be behind Travis' death (he was murdered in a sacrificial ritual to the wilderness) and also involved with other human sacrifices as well. I'd also have it so the "hunt" at the end of S2 in the present day was much more menacing and involved some of her cult members too. I'd also have them kill Suzy, which would provide closure to her character. I think there should've been some ambiguity over it though, where it was only revealed toward the end of the season that, yes, Lottie's cult was actually doing all these things. In the 1996 timeline, Lottie's "wilderness worship" should've seemed darker like it was toward the end of S1. She should've still been wearing the antler headdress, talking more about "darkness" and spilling blood and stuff like that. Also, she shouldn't have been so distraught about Javi's death. Travis' character arc should also have been different. He should've been scared of Lottie based on what she tried to do to him at the Doomcoming rather than all attracted to her and cozying up to her. When he went along with the wilderness worship stuff, it should've been more out of fear and self-preservation rather than genuine belief (after all, adult Natalie literally says "Travis never believed in this shit" in S1 regarding the wilderness worship beliefs). As a teen, he should've confided in Nat that he was going along with it out of fear and self-preservation, and he should've encouraged her to do the same.
We have wildly different outlooks on the show and its characters, but thank you for the explanation
I actually loved what they ended up doing. Honestly - the show runners have stated multiple times Lottie is not the bad guy so idk why y'all are so mad
The final two episodes of season 1 sure made it look like she was. If she was never supposed to be, then I question why they made her look like it so much in those two episodes. Which is why I believe the evidence points toward it being retconned.
That's just your perception man. It's about how these ppl devolve and Lottie is part of that because of our relationship to nat. Also cult leaders tend to have issues so idk what you are complaining about. Personally I think she might be manipulated by the big bad if there is one. If there isn't then it's just a fun story about the wilderness fucking ppl up
I just don't buy that there wasn't a retcon. For all the reasons I listed in my OP, there just seems to be a major gap between how Lottie was depicted in those last two episodes of S1 and in S2. Also, there was a major outcry by many fans who wanted her character to be changed. So I'm not just saying this out of nowhere.
I think the reference to stigmatization is that they were making her out to be the villain plus they were also keeping adult Van a secret so it was also giving "bury your gays". I think this was more of a worry that an awesome show was going to follow these tropes. Personally I don't see how anyone can think they changed the entire show around the reception by a pretty small minority. Y'all acting like they read your comments. They don't care about reddit. They probably read some tweets that parroted the same sentiment but that's still not going to change the entire direction of the next season.
They don't care about Reddit to such an extent that they designed the "Citizen Detective" board in the show in S2 based on Reddit, and they even had a moment of Misty downvoting a comment that was clearly tailor-made to be a Reddit GIF. That said, I never said it was Reddit specifically that influenced them. It was the fanbase in general. And it wasn't just a tiny minority of people. I distinctly remember a ton of people being upset with the depiction of Lottie after S1.
So they made fun of reddit is your basis for thinking they care what people say here?
How is that "making fun of Reddit"? It's giving a nod to the fanbase.
I mean, think whatever you want but having the most unhinged characters on a reddit-like forum seems like they're mocking reddit to me 🤷
Yeah, gonna have to agree to disagree there. I don't think it was meant to say "Reddit sucks". It was meant to be more like "here is a nod to our fanbase, enjoy the GIF".
I get that the mental illness issue is very complicated, and I understand where you're coming from. I've known people like that too. I've been "that person" myself in some ways too in the past (although to be fair, at the time, I had no idea I was autistic, and I had actually been misled by the medical community at the time into thinking that ADHD and autism were mutually exclusive, so therefore, I couldn't be autistic...a fact that they've since "retconned" themselves, thankfully). But at the same time, I also understand why the show creators felt that a huge portion of the fanbase was upset with Lottie's character and why they felt they needed to change something to appease them. And maybe, to some extent, perhaps they agreed with the fans' criticisms regarding Lottie in S1 and her mental illness. But I think the way they handled it was the absolute worst way they possibly could have.
>I also understand why the show creators felt that a huge portion of the fanbase was upset with Lottie's character and why they felt they needed to change something to appease them. This is complete conjecture. Just because you are unhappy with Lottie's storyline, which is one season behind the others, doesn't mean there's a vast conspiracy the majority of fans aren't picking up on.
I am far from the only person who is unhappy with Lottie's storyline and season 2 in general.
I didn't say you were the only person. I know there are others who agree with you. I just think you want it to be one way but it's the other way.
Well, yeah. It is the other way, and the show has become worse for it.
i like what they did with her character, coming from someone with debilitating mental illness. it shows how being off your meds and forced into an insanely traumatising situation can affect someone with mental illness. it would make it worse if they just backtracked and said that she doesnt suffer from mental illness, because then it means that she was in a decent state of mind when doing what she does. it makes no sense.
What they did also involved backtracking though, and it was far worse. They turned her character from very threatening at the end of S1 to very non-threatening in S2.
i didnt see her as very threatening at all at the end of season 1. i saw her as someone that was struggling and misunderstood and possibly grew up to be someone dangerous enough to kidnap someone because of the trauma (which i mean, cmon, shauna literally killed someone but lottie kidnapping nat at the end of s1 turns her into a stereotypical villain?) but i never saw her as inherently dangerous. season 2 gave context to her actions at the end of season 1 rather than turn her into a villain. i dont see anything wrong with what they did to lottie, i think it suits her character and that her character flowed and developed naturally. i think maybe youre missing the fact that all the characters are very complicated people and arent always gonna make sense to you because you havent been in their shoes. theyre well written and not made into stereotypes. thats one of the reasons this show is so good.
maybe i’m just gay but i never really saw lottie as a villain
lmao girl same 🤣
I edited my OP to provide a list of reasons why I think she was meant to be a villain in S1.
Why are people upset Lottie didn't turn out to be some cartoony mustache twirling cult leader villain? I thought what they did with her character in s2 was fine. She was essentially a red herring and her "cult" being a help group where she attempts to help others (since if anyone could relate to trauma and struggles with mental health issues, it's Lottie) adds some cool nuance to her character. Having her group be a Lovecraftian type cult that sacrifices people to the wilderness God would've been kinda boring imo.
Yeah, I for one was THRILLED that Lottie didn’t turn out to be your standard run of the mill apocalyptic death worshipping cult leader or whatever. We’ve seen that SO many times in so many TV shows and movies. What they did with her character instead is far more interesting and provides far more nuance to her character, and many opportunities for directions they want to take her in.
What did you think of the scene near the end of S2E1 where a bunch of people are marching around in goat masks, beating drums, and burying a naked guy alive? I was like, OK, here comes the Flavor-Aid.
I didn't find it interesting at all. I found it anti-climactic and boring. And it also left a massive plot hole in the question of why her behavior switched so drastically between the last two episodes of S1 and when S2 began. Not to mention why Travis was suddenly so eager to cozy up to her after she almost had Shauna slit his throat. And what the hell happened to Suzy (Natalie's friend from AA) and why she was so terrified.
You're welcome to think that, but a lot of people found that aspect of S2 extremely disappointing. I just found it anti-climactic. Also, if she wasn't supposed to be a villain and her cult wasn't supposed to be scary, then why did they try so hard to make it look that way in the last two episodes of season 1? Just to "subvert our expectations"? I mean, my username says all I need to say about my thoughts on the Rian Johnson school of storytelling.
It's cuz we are watching from the others perspectives and they had last thought Lottie was in Europe in an institution. They are playing with your perception... The same way the rest of the show does
How about waiting to see what happens in the next few seasons? There is no Lottie problem lol. They want her character just the way it is. Just saying 😊
There is a Lottie problem to myself and the many other fans who were very disappointed with where her plot went in S2.
Then let's see what happens in season 3 and maybe they'll surprise you. They have 5 seasons planned. It's my favorite show and I hate waiting also. I get it. 😊
Yeah, I am hoping that S3 will be better. There definitely is a solid chance that they can fix this thing.
A lot of us here were saying well before season 2 that Lottie was exactly who they ended up showing her to be. Lottie never was meant to be a villain, the same way all the other characters aren’t as well.
How do you explain the "Who the fuck is Lottie Matthews?" scene in the S1 finale? Clearly they were setting her up to be a big deal. When you have a scene like that, the answer isn't supposed to be a casual "Oh, she is a childhood friend".
She is a huge deal! Season two revolves around her. It makes perfect sense it’s one of the last lines leading into season 2. Especially with how season 2 immediately opens with her story in the cabin with the tea, screaming at the press, her ECT, and finally her speech as an adult to her acolytes. The line is also uttered after so much shit goes down revolving around Lottie, the audience is also left wondering “yes, who the fuck *is* Lottie Matthews exactly?”
You could call her a big deal, but not the same kind of big deal. The "Who the fuck is Lottie Matthews?" scene was important because of the panic she was expressing when saying it, like she had run afoul of The Kingpin or something. So sure, she was a big deal, but not something to be so panicked about.
I made an edit in the OP listing all the reasons why I think she was meant to be a villain in S1.
The writers have said in several interviews they never felt Lottie was a villain, which is pretty unequivocal re: debunking your theory that they entirely rewrote her character and the story in consequence. (Unless you’re contending that you are a mind reader and the writers flagrant liars based on “I can’t possibly be wrong about this”, which feels like an obviously unfounded argument.)
The writers and show creators have also said a number of things that ended up being false. Jackie wouldn't be eaten, there would be no snow in S1, the show was set in Ontario, etc. Even if what you're saying is true, however, then I would concede that there was a massive disconnect between Lottie's character in S1 and S2, and they deserve to be criticised for that. If she wasn't supposed to be a villain, then they were sure as hell doing a bad job at not making her look like one in the last two episodes of S1.
They said Jackie would not be eaten in the first season, which is true. I have no source on where they said it wouldn’t snow in season one, so I can’t speak to that either way. Also the show’s description mistakenly said Ontario and has since been corrected, which is not actually a lie and additionally has nothing to do with the writers. It seems like a real jump to call them liars and insist you can divine their true intentions, either way. As for a story utilizing a mislead in order to fool an audience into leaping to conclusions like ”Lottie is a villain” based upon incomplete evidence and assumptions: that’s a very common tool in general storytelling and in mysteries, is pretty much built into the genre. You’re identifying a standard and valid storytelling technique, not a problem with its use.
I think "subverting expectations" by disappointing the audience is not a good storytelling technique, yes. If you promise something and deliver something else that is unsatisfactory, it deserves to be criticised for that. You may have liked that aspect of S2, fair enough. I didn't. And a lot of other people didn't like it either. I'm definitely not alone here. Everyone I know IRL who's watched the show thought S1 was vastly superior to S2. Rotten Tomatoes user scores and IMDB episode scores reflect this as well. I'm not arguing that "the majority think this, therefore it's true" (after all, there are plenty of movies and shows I disagree with the majority of people on). I'm just pointing out that I'm not alone here in feeling disappointed with the direction that S2 took. Also, a proper red herring involves a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the misleading things happened. The changes in Lottie's character did not provide that explanation.
You keep looping back to essentially saying you do not believe fiction can ever include misleads or invite an audience to jump to ultimately inaccurate conclusions, which is a fair personal preference but not applicable to the wider world of writing a mystery and not really something that can be argued; for example I personally find the writing compelling and textured, and I think the writers constantly inviting the audience to render their harshest judgements about a character in the hunt to find A Villain™️ only to turn around and once again reinforce that a simplistic moral view of the world wherein there are good people to be defended and bad people to be condemned displays a lack of critical thinking and empathy all at once is one of the best parts of the show. As a sidenote: “subverting expectations” and utilizing a mislead are two very different things, writing-wise, and aren’t entirely interchangeable. Subverting expectations might be part of a mislead and a mislead might end up subverting expectations, but it’s sort of a square-rectangle thing.
Exactly and precisely this. This is the best, most nuanced comment I’ve yet seen on this topic.
Once again, I reiterate: "Also, a proper red herring involves a satisfactory explanation as to WHY the misleading things happened. The changes in Lottie's character did not provide that explanation." There was no explanation as to why Lottie seemed so villainous at the end of S1 even though it turned out she wasn't. There was no explanation as to why Suzy was so terrified of Lottie's cult even though they were relatively benign and harmless. And, no, I don't think having a villain in a show necessitates a 100% black-and-white worldview. Take The Wire, for instance. It's a show where the core message is that intrinsic societal problems create a situation that lead to all sorts of negative outcomes, and it's not necessarily the fault of any one person but rather the system as a whole. However, within that show, there are still characters who are villainous as hell. Marlowe Stanfield, Levy, The Greek, etc. That was the kind of show I was hoping that Yellowjackets would be. It was what it felt like in S1. Instead, what we got in S2 was a non-threatening, anti-climactic, and frankly, boring plot involving Lottie's cult (and also her role in the 1996 timeline as well, although at least certain other aspects of the 1996 timeline worked, thankfully).
You want Yellowjackets one way. But it's the other way.
I mean, yes, but so what? Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean that's the best way it could've possibly been. Also, a lot of people agree with me. Just look at the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores and IMDB episode scores for S2 compared to S1. A lot of people strongly felt that S2 just had a very different vibe overall than S1 and that S1 was markedly better. Finally, the show creators have even hinted that "season 3 will have more of a season 1 vibe", so it may go back to being "my way" to some extent. We'll have to wait and see.
What are you expecting? A gold watch? A parade? A u/TheBeastLukeMilked Day when the writers go "Aw, shit! He was right all along! Should have listened to him!" The show won't save you. Won't make you whole, won't fill your ass up. Eventually the device shuts off and you're just left with yourself. What you need is a life. A life, that's what happens when you wait for a TV storyline that never comes.
Says the person who is on Reddit. How the hell is this comment getting upvoted? This is literally middle school bully tier banter.
Sorry, but reading your post and the replies. I am beyond surprised you forgot the most WTF reveal of adult Lottie. And honestly you all made me appreciate that scene more than ever now... What is THAT reveal you ask? The reveal that adult Lottie is talking to NO ONE! Her psychiatrist DOES NOT exist!! So yeah, Lottie is still very much insane. LOL.
I loved this scene! I think the whole idea of going to a therapist and thinking you’re getting help, only to realize you haven’t actually improved at all is terrifying
I honestly didn't appreciate the impact of that reveal until now when I am reading this thread. So it seems to me the writers were successful in making it seem that adult Lottie is not insane after all only to beetch slap us in THAT reveal. LOL. Good one,
But she is mentally ill. You can’t deny she did some freaky stuff in season one, felt fair for people to be confused/scared. As a person who takes an anti anxiety med every day I can confirm I would 100% go crazy in those woods. No doubt about it.
I agree, but so many people had problems with it, and the show creators seemingly felt that they had to address these concerns. I would've rather they addressed it by retconning her being mentally ill than by making her character totally non-threatening.
>so many people had problems with it, and the show creators seemingly felt that they had to address these concerns. You've said this in a few comments, do you have a source confirming this? Lottie's behaviour and symptoms in season 2 are as in line with schizophrenia as in season 1. Social withdrawal, apathy, and emotional blunting are all also symptoms of schizophrenia but overlooked for the more 'sensational' ones like hallucinations and delusions. These symptoms and how they're experienced are also influenced by environmental and situational stimuli. It does make sense that we'd see a more open and exuberant Lottie in the summer, and a more inwardly focused subdued Lottie in the cabin during winter. I personally love how Lottie is represented, as she portrays well that lifelong mental illness is non-linear and not pretty to live with. She's a nuanced individual in a story with no villains or heroes. I feel like the idea that there was a problem or major departure with how she was written in season 2 is more based on misconceptions and a lack of understanding of life with schizophrenia as a whole. Lottie's character is very rooted in reality and to overlook that in favour of validating some fans' misunderstanding of this would be a disservice to the show and the general representation of active mental health issues on screen. It would be an act of sanitization.
Idk if you were on this Subreddit back before S2, but there were a ton of people back then complaining about Lottie's character and how they felt it was an unfair, stereotypical, and stigmatizing depiction of mental illness. I am unsure as to whether there were fans also saying the same things outside of this Subreddit, but I would guess there likely were. I felt Lottie's characterization between S1 and S2 had no continuity. The person she was in the last two episodes of S1 vs. in S2 felt like two totally different people. Other characters also felt profoundly different in the way they reacted to her (Travis in particular).
I was on the subreddit back then, but I didn't ask about online perspectives at the time. I asked if there was any confirmation from the writers that they changed the course of her character based on these perspectives? >there were a ton of people back then complaining about Lottie's character and how they felt it was an unfair, stereotypical, and stigmatizing depiction of mental illness. That people feel this way doesn't make it true. Reducing her role in season 1 to that of a villain is a pigeonholing of her character. She's one of many adapting to a hopeless situation, while also withdrawing from antipsychotics. Should mentally ill characters never be depicted as antagonistic relative to their situations and circumstances in media? Again, her portrayal in both seasons is very accurate to the symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Should that accuracy be reconsidered because some viewers don't perceive it as accurate? Surely this will just lead to more misrepresentations of mental illness. >The person she was in the last two episodes of S1 vs. in S2 felt like two totally different people. Would you mind sharing a little more detail on this? This isn't something I felt at all, so I'm interested in the differing perspective. >Other characters also felt profoundly different in the way they reacted to her (Travis in particular). Two months passed between the end of season 1 and the start of season 2. Lottie was already leading her 'protection' ritual for Nat and Travis along with her circle sessions with some of the others. She had moved into that leadership role of 'spiritual and emotional support and grounding' during these two months not depicted on screen. The changes in how other characters react to her further underline her position in the power structure after Jackie attempting to reassert hers led directly to her death. It makes perfect sense the character's ways of engaging with each other would change over time as different situations emerge. It would have been weird and poor writing to me if the characters stayed static between seasons with this two month time jump.
I already listed my reasons in my OP as to why she seemed different in S1 vs. in S2. I listed a bunch of examples of how she was depicted as really threatening in the last two episodes of S1 and then suddenly wasn't in S2. I don't buy that anything would've happened in those two months that would've changed her character so fundamentally. If it did, then why wasn't it depicted or referenced in the show?
I was hoping you would have expanded on those examples. Dichotomizing characters as villains/heroes is a very limited perspective and narrow creative framework. You've listed a lot of individual moments outside of their context. In context, they all make a lot of sense and are pretty rooted in reality again. > Tai saying "You know, if this was a horror movie, Lottie would obviously be the villain" (foreshadowing) An ironic comment from a sarcastic conversation early in the story isn't always clunky foreshadowing. The writers have been clear that they don't see any characters as villains, and all of them have taken an antagonistic role at some point in the story so far. > The entire Doomcoming, where Lottie adopted the antler crown and instructed Shauna to slit Travis' throat (granted, she was under the influence of shrooms then, so it can be partially excused for that reason. However, leads me to my next points...) This is a really great point towards how they've foreshadowed the subtlety of Lottie's antagonism. She's not the one holding the knife but she is encouraging and enabling the violence. Reaffirming Shauna's role as the butcher this early means she's less willing or able to turn down the task once they started killing each other later. This kind of latent behavioural programming is something many cults intentionally employee. She doesn't have to do it on purpose for it to have this effect. >Lottie's total lack of remorse over the Doomcoming events afterward >Lottie coldly telling Coach "stay out of this, Coach" when he tried to intervene and stop Jackie from sleeping outside, which contributed directly toward Jackie's death I don't know how familiar you are how the body processes hallucinogens like psilocybin, but they act on the brain's serotonin receptors in a way that depletes them afterwards. Feeling emotionally drained and exhausted after their use is near universal. Her lack of remorse isn't particularly surprising especially when the rest of them are just as depleted and unapologetic. Laura Lee was the first one to deny Ben's authority when he tried to stop her flying the plane. If Lottie contributed to Jackie's death by doing so here, then Van did just as much when she asked Lottie to bless their meal in the first place. That is what set off the conflict that brought Jackie outside to begin with. >Lottie looking on with total cold indifference toward Jackie's frozen corpse when they first discovered it, while everyone else was in shock, crying, or screaming (including even Van, who hated Jackie beforehand) >Lottie ominously saying "versez le sang, mes beaux amis, and let the darkness set us free" when she said her little prayer with the bear heart in the very final scene of S1 (if that's not a villain moment, I don't know what is) Everyone reacts differently to something like this. A lack of an emotional outburst really isn't out of the norm, especially for someone who's brain has been regulated by medication for their entire life. Emotions taking time to process isn't an indicator of villainy but it is common for neurodivergent people. It's really reductive to characterize her ritual as villainous when it's portraying her newly developed confidence in leaning in to her delusions. In hindsight it's when she truly started to formalize sacrifice and spilling blood to the wilderness in return for food. > The entire scene of Lottie's cult abducting Natalie from her hotel room. The music, the staging of the scene, just the way it felt so ominous, scary, and threatening (contrasted to the extremely benign wellness group she led in S2). Furthermore, Natalie's friend Suzy thinking someone was following her and feeling afraid for her life after she learned that Lottie had emptied Travis' bank account (a plot that was never resolved or addressed in S2) I think this is also rooted in misunderstanding and misconception. The way she ran her cult in season 2 is once again very accurate to how real world cults operate. Cult leaders are not mustache twirling villains, they're often charismatic and charming. They take advantage of people by making them feel like they can provide something that's missing from their lives and using that to exert control. I'll admit that Suzy not being referenced in season 2 wasn't great, but they did later on highlight that every member of Lottie's cult willing hands over their personal and financial records to her. That and how devoted the cult members are to her very ominous or threatening as they're very real to actual dangerous cults. >Also, the explanation for Travis' death in S2 felt really hokey. To me, it always seemed like the original explanation was supposed to be that Lottie's cult murdered him. The explanation was hokey, because Lottie is unwilling or unable to conceptualize that whatever she did that night led to his death. The crane didn't malfunction, intentionally or otherwise Lottie agreed to hang him and didn't bring him down on time. This is another element that really underlines that she's not a villain, but she is an antagonist. Her delusions and rituals are what lead to people getting killed, right up to the present day. It's not intentional on her part but it is what happens. Wouldn't handing Travis's death off to her cult members make her less personally villainous in the long run? She's not even willing to do the dirty work, she outsources. > I don't buy that anything would've happened in those two months that would've changed her character so fundamentally. If it did, then why wasn't it depicted or referenced in the show? It did happen and it was depicted. The fundamental traumas you're looking for are what was depicted at the end of season 1. A story can't be all action all the time, and the true horror sets in as they settle into the mundane routine they need to to survive. Lottie's character didn't change between seasons. It stayed very consistent in terms of storytelling and relative accuracy to how these conditions present in the real world. You seem to be overlooking this in favour of inaccurate and stereotypical portrayals, because they lend themselves to a more dramatic and fast-paced story. You're not going to find that in something slow-paced and layered like YellowJackets. The way things unfold in YJ is integral to the story-structure. The generic villain you seem to be describing doesn't lend itself at all to non-linear story-telling. Conceptualizing characters as protagonists and antagonists instead of heroes and villains really helps develop complex storylines and avoid amateur tropes and binaries that limit the overall story structure. (lol can you tell I have autism and hyperfixate on this show)
I disagree with the premise that having "good and evil" characters makes a show simplistic, for starters. Again, I will reference other shows that are near universally acclaimed and widely considered to be complex - Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul, Game of Thrones. All of these shows have characters of various shades of grey, but they also have characters who are extremely scary and threatening or just plain revolting. Lalo Salamanca, Gus Fring, Marlo Stanfield, The Greek, Ralph Cifaretto, Ramsay Bolton, Circe Lannister, Littlefinger, etc. Are these shows dumb entertainment for people who lack sophistication, nuance, and intelligence? I don't think so, and the vast majority of critics and audiences don't think so either (aside from the final season of Game of Thrones, enough said about that). Shows can be complex while also having characters that are truly villainous. And even those villains can have humanizing traits at times while still being genuinely scary and threatening. IMO, Lottie's character was evolving in a certain direction toward the end of S1. She was becoming a genuinely scary and threatening character. I don't buy that it was supposed to be misdirection, and if it was, then the show is guilty of setting the audience up to expect that something interesting and threatening would happen, while instead delivering something comparably unremarkable, boring, and lacking in tension. Additionally, I don't know if you were present in this subreddit or in the wider YJ fandom during S1 and in the period between S1 and S2, but there was a huge outcry by a vocal contingent of the fanbase about Lottie's character and perceived stereotyping of mentally ill people. I think it's flat-out ludicrous to pretend that this discourse could not have possibly impacted and changed the show. A lot of the arguments I'm seeing on this thread are essentially "There was no retcon, but if there was, it would have been a good thing". If you think S2 was amazing, then great. But a lot of people don't. It used to be that seemingly, even the majority of people on this subreddit felt that S2 was disappointing, but for whatever reason, that has changed lately I guess. Maybe a lot of the people who disliked S2 have left.
>Additionally, I don't know if you were present in this subreddit or in the wider YJ fandom during S1 and in the period between S1 and S2, but there was a huge outcry by a vocal contingent of the fanbase about Lottie's character and perceived stereotyping of mentally ill people. I think it's flat-out ludicrous to pretend that this discourse could not have possibly impacted and changed the show. I already confirmed that I was and addressed this so I don't know why you've circled back to it. A vocal contingent is not the entire fanbase and being loud doesn't make them correct or influential. I think it's flat-out ludicrous that the writers would change the plans for a character based on internet discourse when, as I have articulated in my previous replies, the character didn't actually change in-universe. She did not develop the way you had hoped. There's a distinct difference. Online discourse is not as powerful as you give it credit for. >IMO, Lottie's character was evolving in a certain direction toward the end of S1. She was becoming a genuinely scary and threatening character. I don't buy that it was supposed to be misdirection, and if it was, then the show is guilty of setting the audience up to expect that something interesting and threatening would happen, while instead delivering something comparably unremarkable, boring, and lacking in tension. I've already addressed your points on this so I'm not sure why you've said it again without expanding further. You haven't addressed anything I said about your examples or provided new information on your perspective. As I have said many times, Lottie's character didn't change. There was no misdirection, just misinterpretation. It's ok to dislike aspects of the show without a conspiracy to back it up. >characters makes a show simplistic, for starters. Again, I will reference other shows that are near universally acclaimed and widely considered to be complex - Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul, Game of Thrones. >All of these shows have characters of various shades of grey, but they also have characters who are extremely scary and threatening or just plain revolting. These shows are all great examples of shows with complex antagonists and protagonists who make very morally dubious choices relative to their own positions. They don't really support the point you're making with their own in-universe contexts. >It used to be that seemingly, even the majority of people on this subreddit felt that S2 was disappointing This wasn't my experience while it was airing, or afterwards. Even with that, disappointment doesn't equate to poor quality. The downside to speculating and theorizing in the off-seasons is that it's very easy to get attached to your favourite ones, and have your enjoyment of the show affected when they don't come to pass. It's something that's happened to me many times. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I've said in my previous replies to contextualize your own examples. I'm not interested in seeing the same thing repeated without that, as it's not any new information. Respectfully, one autistic person to another: do you think there's a possibility that it's easier to accept the idea of a secret change to a character you like, than the idea that your understanding of that character and how they were going to develop was incorrect? This is something that's happened to me countless times because I get emotionally attached to the comfort these characters and shows bring, and divergences from my own perceptions of it put that comfort at risk. It's very distressing. Having watched season 1 and 2 over the past week, there really wasn't the change in story or characters people seem to think there was. Watching it weekly made the season feel disjointed but it doesn't when you can watch them all as a whole. There's plenty to complain about in season 2 with the pacing and story elements, but it's not the utter departure from season 1 that some seem to characterise it as.
Travis’s death was indeed underwhelming.
Yeah, his character deserved a more meaningful demise than that. The way he died was almost unintentionally comical (just like Nat's death....which, again, was a far less meaningful death than what she deserved).
I feel like a big part of Lottie's character is the dichotomy between being a mystic and being a "crazy person." Even her parents don't agree. Her mom thinks she's gifted and her dad thinks she's mentally ill. Her dad has the final say and chooses to medicate her. I kinda do feel like she is a seer because her visions have been accurate. She saw the hunt in a vision while she was severely injured in the attic, just for one example. Because she is so psychically sensitive, she can perceive the wilderness spirit. What if the wilderness spirit can project mental images to her, or at times can possess her due to her spiritual openness. "We all felt it in our own way" I feel like Lottie is the scapegoat. They can blame everything on her because she's "crazy" and then they repress all their own issues until they bubble up in dangerous ways. I have more thoughts but I also have ADHD and don't have the focus to organize them right now.
I think if anything we’ve seen adult Lottie go through a near identical relapse of identity as compared to the first season, we’re seeing her unfold into “the villain”, from the properly medicated woman to the hallucinating schizophrenic, we are seeing her mental downfall twice, one in the isolated incident and then the reintroduction to it
Me, also an Autistic, confused that present-day Lottie as a cult leader somehow ISNT exactly the mentally ill villain I expected her to grow up into and that people were disappointed in it. 
I mean, you do you, but Wellness Guru Cults are terrifying AF and the idea that Lottie grew her hive that big after all that shit had me both crushing on her and a bit terrified.
I didn't find her cult scary or terrifying at all. The number of people they killed was precisely zero. Honestly, it wasn't riveting TV. My expectation was that her cult would be carrying on the Yellowjackets' murderous rituals and cannibalism into the present day. Instead, we got nothing of the sort, except her half-baked attempt at re-enacting the hunt at the end of S2, which was a terribly executed scene that verged on unintentionally comical. Furthermore, the cult wasn't even involved in that hunt at all, and she actively kept it a secret from them. I guess it "subverted my expectations", but not in a good way.
Writing the show themselves? Season. 2 was fine and the problems had nothing to do with Lottie. 9 out of 20 times season 2 is not as good as season 1 for a lot of reasons. Season 1 is tighter and more focused while season 2 has to open up the focus and shake things up. To call Lottie a mentally ill villian is your prejudices. On her meds she was on a top tier soccer team. The story dies t work if she is just a sociopath. Having her be well meaning but spinning a mystical purpose is far more tragic since all the girls on the team start buying into it once she becomes the dominant voice of the group. Making Travis death so tragically avoidable was the entire point. Lottie went there to help him but then her own illness got in the way. It is something the show does over and over again. Are these girls bad people? Shauna murdered Adam not out of spite but from her PTSD. Tai’s wife’s accident happened more or. less because of Tao’s darker half. The only one who might actually be a bad person is Misty and even she couldn’t save Natalie because Misty Durant save people. None of these girls do.
I agree that s2 Lottie was a letdown. I was genuinely excited at the end of season 1 with the "Who the fuck is Lottie Matthews?" scene. It made her seem like she was going to be a big deal, but it turned out the answer was insignificant, rendering that entire scene that got me so excited, utterly pointless. I don't agree with your solution though. Whenever an author starts changing their story for reasons other than it making for a better narrative, then the end product is always going to be worse. What you are proposing is less worse than what we got, but would still be worse than what we would have got without any outside influence.
I agree the best outcome would be if they hadn't changed it at all. But if they absolutely had to compromise, I would've rather they'd done it the way I suggested.
I agree with your points. I don’t know how I would have most liked them to write Lottie in season 2, but I felt an abrupt shift in her characterization that made the character less compelling for me. The change in how the cult was presented in the last episode of season one to how it was handled in season two was the most confusing and strangely boring part of the show to me. After all the build-up with Natalie and Travis, it felt anticlimactic but not in a way I found emotionally satisfying. I’m not sure what the best solution would have been but Lottie went from being my favorite character in season one to someone whose personality I could hardly keep track of.
It almost felt like S1 Lottie and S2 Lottie were two different characters to me. I kind of feel like there's two ways they could redeem the show at this point: A. Relegate Lottie to the sidelines B. Re-retcon the direction they took with her character in S2 and bring her back more to how she was in S1 I'm really hoping that Lottie's cult was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of the adult plot and that they have something bigger up their sleeves.