PLAYER 1 DID NOTHING WRONG!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- In this video I present the case that Il-Nam (Player 1) the old man from Squid Game did nothing wrong in his master plan. Watch and you be the judge.
Check out my Squid Game Ending Explained Here: • SQUID GAME Ending Expl...
FOLLOW ME:
Twitter: / thinkstoryyt
Instagram: / thinkstoryyt
TikTok: / thinkstory
#SquidGame #Netflix
I did this video for the LOLs and to one day hopefully find my gganbu ❤️ Please do not get rich and start a game betting on people's deaths for money 😂
Check out my Squid Game Ending Explained video here: ua-cam.com/video/oKAQJEgH6MM/v-deo.html
Ur clutching at straws here buddy!!🤣🤣🤣🤣😳 he and his rich buddies put on gold masks, bet money and watch people get killed playing kids games trying to win money to better their lives..tsk tsk. No devils advocate for Il Nam
What about the thugs he owed money? He didn't spend the money for a year. Plot hole?
Good video…nice try but ummm…no….he has some form of sociopathy and grandiosity complex And as some would say “the road to h3ll is paved with good intentions” 😬
Trash vid
@@desultorilypanacea Words probably got out he’s “dead”
My biggest issue with his games is the hypocrisy of wanting the games to be completely fair, while simultaneously encouraging murder in the dorms after lights out.
That was a part of the game. They even said something like "initiating special round 3".
@@lucianofrancesco4742 i know they added it in as part of the games, but it was an unfair addition at odds with the egalitarian nature of the games.
They were told if they followed the rules and played all 6 games they would have a chance to win, and earlier on when the wesk hungry guy tried to attack the gangster he was told violence wasn't allowed between players in the dorms and he would be eliminated. But the gangster was allowed to not only attack, but to murder anyone he wanted with impunity. So clearly there is no fairness at play in these games at all.
@@iSchmidty13 The only instances where they didn't allow violence that I remember were during the vote and during game 4. I honestly don't recall when they defended the gangster, if it happened then my bad.
@@lucianofrancesco4742 the gangster took two rations of food, then kicked to death the man he stole it from, all right in front of the soldiers
@@iSchmidty13 No yeah, I remember that, I don't remember when the opposite was true. At no point the gangster was attacked and the guards then stepped in. They never said that violence wasn't allowed.
"Elimination" in any child's game could never mean murder. You can't really blame the players for not asking what it means. Following the rules is not as simple as you make it sound to be. The creators of the game were going to make sure players get eliminated either way. This is why the purposely instigated the attack at the dorms. The old man and the creators of this game were wrong. There could never be a moral justification to killing people just for you amusement.
Keep in mind that his main goal wasn't just fun, but he also had a schewed vision about humanity, and thought no one would care, if they wanted to go through all that struggle and stress for money. Its like giving a sociopath empathetic chances. People are arguing with only one side of the story, come on...
Plus he ropes them in with that game that conditions them to expect being abused at worst if they lose, so when they go in they think it's gonna be more of the same and if they fuck up they either get kicked off or just beaten up again. He set their expectations up only to swoop in and demand a far greater price than they had ever imagined.
thank you
Well said.
No one gets gassed to sleep , stripped of their belongings and wakes up in a prison like compound wearing the same uniform as the other hundreds of players and doesn’t think something sinister isn’t going on.
The biggest issue is that they didn’t ACTUALLY have a choice. There was a huge coercion factor here. The subway game wasn’t about “who needed the money,” it was about who would find the game irresistible. It was predatory in the same way that cults recruit people who are vulnerable.
Literally, and the players like the main character literally had a gambling issue
@@bobsburgers8497 its still a choice.
@@JohnDoe-gc1kt It's not a choice if you're coerced. Probably the type of guy to defend men who coerce women to have sex because it was there " choice' but no, it was still rape.
@@JohnDoe-gc1kt Technically, you’re not wrong; they chose to come back. However, it’s an abusive power dynamic. It FEELS like they don’t have a choice. The situation is specifically designed to push as many participants possible to agree to participate. And then, once they’re back, they aren’t free to change their mind anymore. True consent is an ongoing process.
@@ZacErickson1906 they chose to relinquish consent. Im born free but if I kill someone I relinquish my right to be free. They were all adults who made a choice after they knew the consequences no matter how bad life was.
you’re forgetting the fact that the wealthy old man arranged this survival game for himself and OTHER rich VIP guest spectators to watch contestants compete to their deaths and bet money on them.
But they also did it to make life fun again
Yes correct
I guess this show is a pro-argument for creating Westworld style parks. So terrible rich people don’t abuse the poor.
semantics
I read a comment before where they suggested that the VIPS are no different than us as spectators. We willingly watched Squid game for the murders, backstabs and entertainment (and we also knew what we were getting into after the first game) so really are we any better morally than the old man and the VIPs?
It was never mentioned that if they lost a game they also lose their life. That’s a big pretty big deal
Exactly!!!they didn’t have a choice in the first game they didn’t know. Technically they didn’t brake any rules just because you didn’t make a score in soccer doesn’t mean you broke a rule other wise you would gotten a card or kick out it just means you lost a point or the game but not broke a rule
they knew, and 93% still came back.
@@laylah7806 Not in the first round
Consent is gained through informed consent! That was a shitty way of informing them
I disagree they were explicitly told they would be eliminated. Yes, eliminated has many meanings but not a single person asked what would happen if they were eliminated. The players were all told the winner would win millions but no one asked for the full rules
"The games are voluntary"
So if I sold drugs outside of a rehab clinic it isnt wrong because it's their choice to buy the drugs?
Well, “yes” it’s their choice, but u as a seller would get in big trouble if the buyers get sick or smt
@@sweetdaemon yeah thats kinda my point, it's their choice but I would be exploiting a vulnerable individual if I were to do that so it isn't a good thing to do
Squid game is more akin to selling Candies with poison to kids.
Yes
Was their choice to take the drugs in the first place. So yes
If he wasn't evil, the contestants wouldn't have been killed. He could have still had fun playing games with strangers. Without the killing part.
It baffles me anyone is defending this man. I like him as a character, but he ABSOLUTELY isn't a good person. It's like someone arguing Hitler wasn't 'evil' because he had some moral values.
@@cortster12 Literally, all though I like the old man's characters bc his carisma is enough to manipulate ppl in his saint Image to the point you think he is a good person
@@cortster12 yeah, i like him but that does NOT make him a good person. also, i've seen people blaming the players for not knowing what "elimination" means. it's a kids game they were playing, why would anyone think "elimination" means getting yourself killed?
Ur thinking is not right according to old man, cause if he only want to see some games he could see in tv too but he conducted those not for normal fun but for extreme fun lemme explain with an example if the guy just keeps the game for money and not killing them then everyone wouldn't give their 100% efforts cause even if they die they will be alive and could do any other works for money but he kept death as Consequence coz a person will give everything he have got if he is said that he will be killed on loosing for example if ronaldo is playing football if he win it he will get money he tries to win but sometimes he gives up he couldn't give his 100% coz even if he loose he will just loose the money. He already have so much money so he couldn't risk everything just for money but if the same guy (ronaldo) is said that if u loose u will be killed then he will give his 100% to win coz he wants to live. That's what old man 001 wanted the 100% strength of people so that game is much Enjoyable but if only prize money was reward all can't give their 100% so he kept killing thingy
@@justarandombunnyhatkidever2676 well it would only make sense that the penalty for losing in those games would be worse than the slap they received for losing against the man in the train station but i do agree that the old man is bad. i think some can assume this was a life or death thing, for example i think sang woo had a hunch about it from the beginning.
The entire purpose of the game is to entertain sadistic people. They purposely planned the violent outbreak by giving the players less food. The game in the end (squid game) was created for a violent ending. It was all manufactured to show loads of gore and violence. If they really cared about fairness, the entire team that worked with the doctor would have been disqualified. The players should have been gifted the same spacious rooms as the staff. The players should have been given the same food as the staff. During the glass floor game, the VIPS decided to turn off the light to lower the survival rate. That was unfair because they changed the setting last minute. They altered a game to see more people die, again the only purpose being satisfying sadists and not giving an "equal" chance. All players should have had the SAME lighting. Also, when you finish a challenge it means you're free from harm, the glass explosion was purposely created to cut the players. Which defeats the whole purpose of completing a task in exchange of safety
On point
yeah too much unfairness I noticed.
1. There's a distinct class, per game rules: players, 🔴 workers, 🔺️ soldiers, 🟥 supervisors, front man, and elites. Everyone has their place. Housing is probably limited, there's 245 players- that's a lot of people
2. Nothing is safe, violence is always encouraged (except voting) 3. The front man turned off the lights because the elites complained that it wasn't "fun" when players can figure it out
4. Glass bridge exploding was to kill anyone left who hadn't crossed before the timer
@@mistyapril29 4. They could have just shoot anyone who hadn't crossed. Glass explosion was the dirty way to kill number 067, since the film maker wants a 1v1 at the final.
@@voquangminhnguyen3193but blowing up was more dramatic 😆
You forgot something: Killing desperate people for amusement is wrong. People who want to help people, just help people. They don't manipulate them into death games.
You know nothing about being low and desperate in life. The old man just gave them life and death choice that will benefit both of them. If you're broke and depressed, living and facing the real world is much worse
@@heath9259 That's the premise of the show, and it's clear. But the point is to hold a mirror to society.
Imagine how much money is spent just to pay the guards and recruiters, research + investigation into players' personal lives, manage logistics and transport, possibly buy off police or officials, build the grand and intricate stadium and berrics, lighting and production, motion detection killer AI dolls, facial recognition software, etc. It's a gigantic operation. All that money could have just gone to charities, or anonymously donated to those random people in debt.
I understand what you mean, but it's not like this prize money is a free lunch. It's a 1 in 456 chance at a new life, where the alternative is basically suicide. And it's performed for the sadistic enjoyment of some Western oligarchs. Even when our protagonist WINS against all odds, he's so traumatized by the game that he can hardly spend the money or see his daughter.
Again: killing desperate people is not good.
@@roastbeefy0weefy if you're the person that believes living is better than death, then you can argue with that.
Do you think if they were not in the game, their life would be better?
Did any viewer realized that the real winner were the killed players? (they finally found peace)
For the VIPs
1. if the VIPs use their wealth in helping the players or for charities, it could be but that were not the satisfaction they're looking for, especially the old man who was waiting for his death.
2. the game is more entertaining for them if player's lives are at stakes. Expect for extreme competition.
3. If the elimination was not killing, those who got eliminated will worsen their suffering emotionally and become more desperate ending up in more bad decisions.
In the end, they were just given a choice for a chance. Even when you call it a stupid choice given, atleast someone cared for their desperation, someone knows and understands their situation,
@@heath9259 The entire point of the game is to exploit human tendency to gamble. They agreed at first, and then the rest agreed after they knew they could die, because they had no conception of the odds. They all, deep down, thought they could win. That death would come to the 'other' guy. They likely tricked themselves into accepting the risks, but only because humans are notoriously good at self-destructive behavior they didn't think through well.
This is on purpose. The game is designed to do this. The game is just for rich assholes to get off on poor people struggling, dying, and losing everything. Number 1 just justifies it to himself so he can sleep at night.
@@heath9259 Are you actually stupid?.... Imagine knowing that 99% of people would die for something and you still watch them do it and even encourage it. Idc if they agreed to the risk or not (even though they literally didn't know in the first game). You have to be a messed up in the head to think that is ok.
1. He specifically chose people who were addicted to gambling or in positions of debt bad enough that playing with their life is the only option.
2. He has an advantage in certain games, maybe not freeze tag but in the tug of war aftermath shows that his locks were broken off.
3. Threatening safety of people in life or death situations, regardless if they agreed or not, is awful. Especially if they don't know if they could die.
He's not evil just a twisted old man corrupted by the false appeal of wealth and suffering with mental conditions that warp reality to a game to him.
if you watch closely the red light doll doesnt even scan him. he was perfectly safe except from the risk of being trampeled
was with you til you said "he's not evil"
He is not evil?
Nah he's definitely evil
Can someone explain why not having locks in tug of war is a benefit. I’ve seen this argument many times but I don’t understand what’s so good about it. The handcuffs are still wrapped around the rope and so he would still be dragged by the rope ? I’ve seen ppl say that if the team fell, he could break free from the handcuffs and let go of the rope but I don’t think he still would’ve had a big chance of surviving because he’d be pushed forward by the player behind him unless he breaks free really quick or he’s at the very back.
yeah he technically didn’t kill people just like mafia/cartel bosses, cult leaders or corporations that ignored workers safety . The last scene with the homeless person just shows how hypocritical the character is, he can save so many lives yet choices not too.
💯
they didn’t have a choice in the first game they didn’t know. Technically they didn’t brake any rules just because you didn’t make a score in soccer doesn’t mean you broke a rule other wise you would gotten a card or kick out it just means you lost a point or the game but not broke a rule
so when you have extra money, do you keep it for yourself or donate it?
@@zikrim1227 try to donate but your asking asinine who you don't know has A LOT of excess funds
Chooses*
He's really out here victim blaming all the poor people for being poor instead of the rich who prey on their desperation and thinks he said something smart and deep.
Damn Right. Hes Nuts.
How to beat Squid Game: 1. Be the cameraman
Or the main character
true
Throw the card away
Or be Il Nam.
So true
1. Il Nam straight up manipulates 456 to come back at his lowest point.
2. He decides to let 456 win the marble game because he knew the glass game was the only unpredictable game even being last he could have lost or been thrown off.
-Red light green light had a greater chance of someone jumping onto him and making him lose but it was a better chance.
Il Nam is a rich man who admits he likes to watch people suffer while soothing his conscious by saying they had a choice but the players were forced to sign their rights away regardless of the fake contract they sign inside the game.
I think maybe it plays more as a scathing rebuke of capitalism if you know the history of Korea, the last few decades have left some people very very rich. That a class of capitalists chooses to hold death games for their own amusement with billions of dollars they have sitting around instead of doing something decent is kind of the point.
You mean like around 30 the others die in game 1,2
I absolutely agree.
@@jennynguyen3063 the number on his jumpsuit never changed. he was also the 456th person to join so he’s still player 456
He didn't manipulate Gi-Hun to return, it was learning of his mother's disease and his daughter's eventual departure that really tipped the scale
If Il-Nam was actually interested in helping people, he could have just given them the money instead of making them bet their lives on it. If he truly believes that the things awaiting them in the real world are so horrible that playing the games aren't as bad, then he knows that their choice to enter the games aren't really a free choice, they're coerced-A choice between slavery and death is hardly a free choice after all. Instead he sought out people who desperately needed money like you yourself said, and he brought them into a game where they could potentially die, rather than just giving them help they desperately needed. He preyed on the desperation of the impoverished for his own entertainment, this show is literally about the exploitation of the working class by the wealthy. And as for your comment about how the rules clearly state you'll be eliminated if you don't follow the rules, do you genuinely think that covers it? Sure none of them asked about specifics of their elimination, but why would they think they needed to? If he was actually interested in giving people a fair choice he would have been upfront with them all about the risks of taking part in all of this.
Very well-said.
Il-nam is a sadistic monster who thinks that poor people are less-than-human sources of entertainment.
To him, it's just a very fancy bloodsport to make time pass until he dies. :)
I agree so much
Agree. If Il-nam thinks life is not fun as an ultra-rich then he can make it enjoyable by offering help to the less fortunate and bringing smiles to them. But the fact he sees the poor as trash shows how he views fun as a rich man: It doesn't have to correspond with the poor. Plus,his cynical view of humanity and the fact he would die without family by his side reveal what he expects from people like Gi-hun: You should beat everyone in your way,including your friends and family,to enjoy the life of being rich (instead of suffering with your dying family). Il-nam not only knows the misery of both the poor and the rich but also the remedy. But that doesn't mean he will make the remedy for the poor. Therefore his wisdom is dangerous albeit impressive (he surely has more depth than other VIPS),because it sounds tempting to ppl who just made themselves rich like Gi-hun.
On the other hand,Gi-hun can't call the old man out as he did participate,even re-participate the game. Il-nam's speech on choice can be concluded as "Just because you are struggling in poverty and can't find life enjoyable does not mean you have no life nor you should join/rejoin this game". This may not apply to ppl with slave-like status like Sae-Byeok,Ali,Ji-yeong,but it does apply to Gi-hun,Sang-woo,Deuk-so who fucked up their own life.
none of them are entitled to his money. they knew what they were getting themselves in and chose money over life. you cant blame the creator. did you even watch the video?
@@stanalex3966 Like I said, he preyed on their desperation for his own entertainment. And also like I said, a choice between doing something horrible or DYING is not truly a free choice, they're being coerced into it. He isn't obligated to give them money obviously but if we're going into this at the angle of "Il-Nam wanted to help people and give them the chance to get out of their horrible living conditions" which is what the video ARGUES is the case, then he should be trying to help people in the most moral way possible, and forcing them to play games where they could die obviously isn't it. The players aren't blame free in their own demises, they could have chosen not to play true, but to say that you can't blame the creator of the game when he went out of his way to find people who were truly desperate to have them be the players of his game is just silly.
Player 1 is basically Korean jigsaw, he may not be pulling the trigger but he’s holding the string that sparks the elaborate set of events that leads to the trigger being pulled. He’s evil, if he wanted to help people at their lowest and find new purpose in life from being bored of his riches, he could’ve held total wipeout style competitions or even just donated it and found a new sense of joy in making many peoples lives better rather than just one traumatised person every so often.
Exacly idk how some are defending him
you are gonna give money to alcoholic and gambler? the main character would use that to gambling if he gave the money in the first episode. he wont be the character that we saw in the last episode.
@@zikrim1227 that doesn’t justify it. you guys sound insane defending the game. yes, I would give money to people struggling if I could. what I wouldn’t do is kill hundreds of people just so one person can improve their life
honestly he could have done all of these games and just eliminated people by sending them home. it's The killing that makes it evil, c'mon now.
not really. jigsaw kidnaps people and place them in the situation. this guy does not
"His decisions throughout the game, even ones that lead to murder are benevolent." Ah yes, it's that benevolent murder you always hear about. Top notch bullshittery.
The fact that people are legit trying to excuse this is making me want to bang my head against a wall.
Reminds me of the people who defend the jigsaw killer in Saw for his "moral code" and the supposed fact he never actually harmed anyone himself.
I suspect someone didn't experience poverty
@@comradezach8516 So you agree this is bullshittery or not?
@@comradezach8516 were waiting
He literally created a real life battle royal.
Doesn't matter if its optional. He feeds off the weak. He feeds of the hungry.
He uses them for his entertainment. He treats them like animals, horses. He is inhumane.
not in particular they had choice their greed for money killed them but at the end of the day murder is murder
@@aangthelastairbender2967 I mean. That's a copout. You sign paperwork when you work at a job. But that doesn't excuse them off abusing their workers.
Look at Amazon. Jeff Bezos is inhumane for how he treats his warehouse workers..
Sure they sign paperwork that doesn't mean the act of watching and actively forcing them is humane. It's not
@@shortstuff780 they signed on their freewill they knew what they were getting into still old man evil simple but they still had a choice
@@aangthelastairbender2967 the choice to go back and live in Powerty?
Aang would be so disappointed by you
@@aangthelastairbender2967 they had a choice even though they didnt know they were going to die in the begining?
how do people so often bullshit themselves into an indefensible position
Marble game was one of the most sadistic thing i seen in recent memory
They knew they would partner up with thier most trusted partner just to make them duel
well the game before that cut the player base in half.. makes sense that the next would also do the same, they wanted to have lower numbers by the time they got to the 2nd last one.
@@JustinK0 still though they knew they’d have to pick the person they trusted the most in there since they’d be going into a death game together
Player 1 is just sadistic, let's all accept that. We can love and/or hate him by who he is, but we can't deny the fact he and the VIPs are just sadistics who don't care about other's live.
@Tamil Slayer he wouldn’t have died tho 💀 he’s literally just playing kids games
@Tamil Slayer he’s playing games he wouldn’t die in if he was “playing the games” he woulda died episode 6. And how’s he less sadistic isn’t it implied he’s probably the or at least one of the organizers of this event?
@Tamil Slayer yeah but they were actually putting their LIVES on the line. When he lost he didn’t get killed.
@Tamil Slayer bro who’s to say it wouldn’t just ignored him-
I think he cared about Gi-Hun's life. Part of the reason he is so heartless is because he has no faith in humanity. He sees everyone as uncaring and selfish, but Gi-Hun unexpectedly became his friend even though teaming up with a frail, demented old man with a brain tumor was an illogical thing to do. I think it was thanks to this glimmer of empathy that #1 allowed himself to retroactively lose on the marble game even though he actually won. He faked his dementia symptoms on purpose hoping he would take advantage of it and survive, and thankfully, he did.
Manipulation isn’t wrong? He purposely focused on finding people “who were on their last,” & didn’t have any more options. Flaunting money on a homeless man or a person desperate to save their family IS GOING TO WANT TO PLAY. He is a master at manipulation. & manipulation is wrong.
Reminds me of movies “bum fights” the video makers wanted entertainment not to help them. Also when people see elimination in a game they aren’t going to assume actually death, there’s a reason they are on a deserted island.
You're forgetting that these people had a choice to play. He gave them the choice and people chose.
Correct. You are smart and kind. Some people are idiots defending the old man and have no compassion
@@katherinelee3721 Calling people idiots for liking a character, good one.
@@littleinfinitie4146 they didn’t have a choice in the first game they didn’t know. Technically they didn’t brake any rules just because you didn’t make a score in soccer doesn’t mean you broke a rule other wise you would gotten a card or kick out it just means you lost a point or the game but not broke a rule
This is a very bingeable series. But warning, don't start watching it at night otherwise you won't be able to fully binge all 9 hours of it in one go without sacrificing sleep.
Bro I started it with a girl I met on tinder and I honestly I wanted her to leave so I could turn the English off and enjoy all night without interrupting lol
Exactly what I just did rn 9am 💀
@@michaelloiacono8300 respect
It’s ok… we learned now that if you sleep the gangsters will kill you in your bed anyway :(
Rip for me i didn’t know the shows actual duration and I watched one English version that was 2hr 30 mins.(had a lot of cuts I guess)
This is such a bad take that I genuinely think this video is trolling
-It's naive to say that anyone "willingly" played this game. That's like saying someone robbed at gunpoint "willingly" gave their money because they could've "chosen" to die. Yes, technically speaking, they had a choice, but saying they had a choice ignores the fact that most people want to live. The participants in the game were all in massive amounts of debt, and couldn't guarantee life for themselves or their families. The Squid Game was the only way they could get the money they needed to live; they didn't "choose" anything, that was just the only thing they could to do to have a chance at surviving.
-Player 001, at no point, risks his life. He can lose, but in the 4th game, when he does, he survives. So, there was never anything at stake for him. Any game he played where he lost, he would survive anyway. We don't know how he would've survived the other games, because we watch the series through the viewpoint of other characters... But he would've survived.
-How is it fair to everyone else that Player 001 knows what the games are in advance? You mention that someone else was killed for that. If it was unfair for that person to know what a game was ahead of time, it's also unfair to have the literal creator of them participate. Aside from that, there are games that are just unfair by design. For example, game 5. It gave a huge advantage to players who were going later, and the players going first practically had no chance of winning.
-Whatever the show does the present Player 001 as a like-able person, he still orchestrated a series of games that people, compelled by circumstance, were forced to play and had to die in order for anyone to benefit from them. If he cared about people so much, he could've just... given them the money. Him not having fun doesn't justify killing 400+ people every year.
This
Beautiful comment. Wraps this up perfectly.
ohmygod you get it reading this comment section and seeing people agree with the video makes my brain rot the game was manipulative as all hell
@@benwoodward5273 ...what are you even trying to say? This Person just disagreed with the Video which is absolutely not a bad Thing + if you disagree so badly with their take then why dont you argue back instead of...this.. its really not a big deal
E X A C T L Y
I think him being the deciding vote to let everyone go home is bc he knows that once everyone got back to their lives it would remind them of how much they didn't want to still live that way and the money's appeal would grow. Also, all of this is to make him a more compelling villian. I think the days of making an "bad guy" has changed. To make one compelling you can relate/understand their motives and reasoning. Not that we have to agree with them but 'we get it'.
at least the dead ones families get 100mil or 100k i forgot
@Siren's Call wait. Really?
@@briannaoppong-antwi9702 yes
It’s like they have an understandable motive to why they believe what they believe in, but the action they take is a villainous act like the old man creating these games to the death where people won’t return to their families.
I think Player 1 was definitely the most psychotic and evil out of all of them. After all he’s the one who created the games, exploiting people’s vices and hardships, relishing on their anguish and suffering. Sang Woo did it for his mom, Gi Hun did it for his mom and daughter, Sae Byok did it for her brother and mother, Deok-Su did it for his debts, but Il Nam created the game to find pleasure in these people’’s hardships and vices. Let’s not pretend he’s some sort of benevolent billionaire who wanted to help people, he exploited people in their absolute lowest point for his own perverse self satisfaction. And with the fact that this wasn’t the only game he’s put people through, I actually think he deserves a much much more violent death than any of them.
There is a banality of evil in our society and capitalist system. I look at this video and comments as a testament to the brainwashing and 'Manufactured' consent we become indoctrinated against. How many ppl lose their jobs through no fault of their own? How many ppl go to the military @18 for 'college' only to be left w/PTSD and commit suicide? There is no consent while being exploited. NONE of this was voluntary. Work or die from starvation/lack of healthcare? The entire show is an expose of the illusion of consent we face in our current system when so many ppl are in prison or poverty while elites watch and laugh, completely alienated from one another. Sang Woo symbolizes the 'corporate' managerial class, that exploited so many and is ruthless, but in the end he is still subjected to the game, and to his debts and crimes, he is still a pawn in the game.
True. He is jigsaw, but kill much more people.
@@angelg8445 Because socialism is so great! LMao
@@fransliszt LMAO cuz Capitalism and fascism are sooooy great!!!!
@@angelg8445 Lol fascism is closer to socialism than capitalism. And yes capitalism is so much better.
"Yooooo am boooreeeeddd. Less kill sum people yo"
- Il Nam, pure wisdom
you're right, no one has ever thought that death is better than existing in a shitty situation,
Lmao
Tell me if you were 6 billion won in debt like sang woo would you want to be in that situation or have a chance to change all of that
@@NickIsSlick698 we’re criticizing Il Nam not Sang Woo
I don't understand how u can argue that the old man wasn't morally absolutely wrong. The reason for my argument was even mentioned in the last episode by the protagonist, if I recall: he preyed on the people's agony and shitty lives. He KNEW they needed money, some more than others. He could've helped all of those that deserved it but instead he rather chose to exploit their misery to basically lure and bait them into the games. The games might have been by free will but it was not a free choice because their perception was misguided and abused by those involved in the game. Otherwise why wouldn't they have invited "normal" people into the game, too? The games were also not fair because a lot of them were very biased towards certain types of individuals, such as the tug of war, as the best example. In addition, the factor of human manipulation and interaction was also unfair because "good" people who earned the win could be killed by those who did not deserve to win and/or were bad people.There was no equal playing field, there was no equal entry condition. There was no equal winning chance. So what exactly was the old man trying to prove again? IMO it was all a sadistic attempt of those involved to gain a purpose and have fun on the suffering of others, while also making cash. This is further reinforced by the fact how the old man still continued the games even after the protagonist showed time and time again that he was trying to be a good man / better person as much as he was capable without throwing his own life on the line. He didn't even cheat at the marble game BEFORE the old man pretended to have dementia, so he even was at least fair in the face of death before having to draw a moral line and wager his own life with/against that of an old man suffering of a disease that will kill him soon eventually.
Skipper I fully agree. He’s an interesting character but still evil as hell.
Thank you
Amazing great comment. I totally agree with you. You are compassionate unlike THAT video guy there
👏👏👏👍👍🙏🙏
I 100% agree on this.
I would Say Sangwoo is more Innocent than the old man. Everything was intentional on his part. Flinging a waver in their face for them to choose is like a form of gas- lighting. If he wanted to participate in his own game to feel more alive then that’s his prerogative, but it doesn’t change the fact that he had so many opportunities to do something with his life and wealth instead of wasting it on Cheep thrills, sadist games, and mere boredom.
The show really makes you think in the way Sangwoo was portrayed. You see him as horrible, but there's a chance you would do the exact same thing
You have no idea what has lighting is, you used that so wrong
A better term would be coercion or manipulation that leads t victim blaming "oh, well you signed the waiver
I know this might sound controversial, but I think sangwoo is innocent. All the things he did were for survival and not because he was bored like the old man.
@@batmanfanboy2212 old man is definitely worse than hin but Sang Woo didn't regret the things he did
The problem is that he didn’t just hand money out to people to help them, he wanted something back for it. Hundreds of human lives had to be given up to make a couple rich people happy, and the survivor rich. I think you can’t say the players came there voluntary when they signed the paper. They purposely didn’t say getting eliminated means getting k!lled and that’s just nasty. 255 people d!ed without knowing how the game actually worked. I think when they returned they where kind of responsible for their own d€ad. But what really makes him a horrible person, is the fact that he enjoyed people dying, he liked indirectly k!lling a lot of people. That just makes him a bad person to me.
I think one aspect that is also often overlooked is the fact that these games are meant to kill almost everyone, there is no way for everyone to win all the games, because most of the games aim at at least cutting the amount of players in half. This is contrary to the first game, which was merely based on your personal skills at the game. People likely came back because they believed all the games would be like that (based on personal skill rather than pure chance). This makes the games, en therefore the old man, even more evil and manipulative.
i think the marble game is illegal
only 1 winner, you live or you die it seems like
maybe they should give you the option if you dont think you can win, you can just walk away
you dont need to do a majority vote
Everyone legit forgot the type of people playing and are comparing them to normal civilians XD
The game was rigged at the start. The people running it constantly interfered to make the game more exciting to watch by lowering their rations to cause infighting and promote a dog-eat-dog mentality because they knew that they had no chance if the players all decided to unite together and overtake the game. And try to steal the pot. They could try shooting them but through sheer numbers alone they could overpower them and take some guns and take them out. It happened once or twice when people were desperate enough, and even when it was a few guys, they still managed to take out a few guards, so it's possible they would have made a dent at least if they all banded together.
@Siren's Call I imagine there has been times when more people lucked out in that one, depending on the starting number of people and really just luck, but the squid game and the marble game guarantee that at least half of the contestants die in the end since they're split in two for those.
@@sweeety969 Literally in Episode 2, its Deok Su (gangsters) idea to get a bunch of armed men to steal the money. And it doesn't work because everyone in the mob hates him. But literally it was only gaslighting and the illusion of freedom and tricking people to play a game they all can't win
Never mind the fact that nobody knew their lives were on the line during the 1st game, the simple fact that the games were held while KNOWING that 455 people would be directly or indirectly murdered makes it pretty damn evil in my book. You think spouses or best friends would join if they knew that there could be only 1 person alive in the end?
exactly. thank you for saying it.
Technically, multiple people could've won. All the games allowed for multiple victors, including the squid game (which is a multi-player game, as shown in the intro). Yeah, some games set you up for failure more than others (ie. marble game). Still you could in fact make it with your SO or BFF... it's just not likely.
@@drifter_d Hmm good point, I was thinking there were enough games that eliminated half the existing players but only 2 or 3 did that. I suppose if they were super lucky on the glass bridge game all 16 could have advanced to the final, which could have then had up to 8 winners. But I still think my original point stands, there's no way spouses or friends could know if they'd be in a game where one would be guaranteed to die, which is what happened to the marble couple.
@@drifter_d when The Cop Jun Ho was looking through the files it showed only 1 winner per year
That was my thing the whole time. I didn't like that they went in thinking multiple people had a chance of winning when in reality it was only going to be 1.
He could have just eliminated people from the games and not brutally kill them.
I know right
yea then change the winnings to $1000 becuase theres zero risk, wouldnt help in the long term.
Hmm this is a bold claim. You can't claim the players have a free choice to stop playing. He purposely chooses people who are desperate. Plus he tricks them initially into playing as they don't know it's life or death at stake. If you have that much debt, dying family members, no future prospects etc and someone waves that much money in your face the majority of people will keeo playing the game. Not sure if he rigged the games as the tug of war game was the riskiest so that's good. But I dunno he's so out of touch he acts like a god. He's not traditionally evil and has some good intentions but he's still in the wrong. You can't just play with people's lives
But what you're forgetting is most of those people had already signed their life away. Seong Gi-Hun had with a bloody finger print signed that if he didn't pay they'd come back and get his eyes, organs, etc...in the first episode. I forgot where I was going with this, but it is kind of free choice since we don't know what happened with the players that chose not to come back, all we hear is to keep tabs on them.
The guy is a monster. Good character but a total monster. Why not target people with ambition and give them the full run down of how the game is played. Anyone who would willingly sign up for this knowing completely what is in store would approach the game with full confidence, instead they prey on the weak and those in extremely vulnerable situations.
@@mariabarrera351 I didn't forget that. It just makes the people he owned money to as bad as player 1. You're just proving my point more. He has deluded himself into thinking his game is fair but it isn't. He was just a bored rich dude who realised he got a thrill from this game and it made him feel alive. He also seems to have a death wish. He just pretends it's fair so he can live with himself.
@@zeromaximus4261 excellent point
@@mariabarrera351 that was only Gi-Hun. Remember the mothers who begged to live to see their children? Yes, they were given then chance to leave but not the red light green light players. The people who fled clearly did not consent to playing a deadly game.
Wy is no one talking about how Ilnam “coincidentally” met Gihun in his neighborhood. If he’s a rich man, he probably doesn’t have friends in that kind of neighborhood. In my opinion he probably had everyone still folllowed and wanted to see Gihun again, to lure him back into the games.
I mean that part was staged for sure imho but from the impression I get, he wasn’t born rich he got rich as he got older
Or that Il-nam placed bets on Gihun
was thinking about this too. agree that it probably was to lure him back in
@@erickelias2863 that makes sense
I guess there was a white truck in the background of Ali and Sangwoo and the same truck in the background of Gihan in one of the scenes, I think it was when he was coming back w his mum from the hospital. He prolly followed all the players? I’m not sure
They NEVER said anything about dying when eliminated. That’s inherently wrong.
Those people in the very first game had no idea that eliminated meant death. He murdered them, plain and simple.
The justification for the first game not being evil is flimsy at best. To use double speak to trick people into thinking they'd be eliminated from the game but actually it meant eliminated from the world is evil. If he had said you will be killed then yeah I'd give it to you. But he purposely hid the truth at the point when most of the people would have likely voted to end the games so he could have his fantasy.
They said players would be eliminated if they lose.
@@boss_niko Then why were the players surprised at the first game? exactly, you wouldnt think that eliminate = get ya ass yeeted outta this world.
@@otaieb48 Exactly! This old man omitted some pretty important information. When I was kid, being eliminated from the game just meant you lost and could no longer play, not murdered.
“The games are voluntary”
He specifically chose people that desperately need money, of course they’ll return to the game.
My sentiments exactly.
And they can say no if they want tho. So it is voluntary
@@adorenu1338 bruh- you sound so dumb, cuz literally if they chose not to do it they would’ve probably gotten killed for debt. He took advantage of desperate people, even if it’s “a choice” it’s heavily coerced
Then the people should have discipline or they'll just be exploited for their weakness
@@spectator6656 It is like saying drug addicts must stop taking drugs. Or else they will be vulnerable and bla bla bla....
The players aren't told their life is at stake and putting "eliminated" in the contract doesn't tell them they could die. Yes they could have asked but that's not the point. It wasn't clearly stated nor were they ever told anyway. It's not informed consent. The waivers are null and void due to this and he is both legally and morally responsible for murder. Not really a way around that
It's a reason why many countries have laws protecting people if the sign a contract that is misguiding. The use of elimination is intentionally euphemistic use to make more people sign. If the games weren't that bad, why didn't the contract just say "If you lose, you'll die"? The more I watched the video the more moronic did the guy sound.
You literally just justified a psychopath who created a 'game' just for the fun of it watching people die in despair of having money ...
NOTHING is the old man a "good person", he was a crazy-assassin who took advantage of the tragedies of others for his own benefit.
Thank you!!
That’s exactly how I feel and see it as. He’s selfish.. and a psycho.
I know honestly, I don’t know understand how people aren’t getting that through their heads and missing the whole point!
"he wants those who need the money to participate" YES, BECAUSE THOSE WHO DON'T WONT HAVE A GOOD ENOUGH INCENTIVE TO RISK THEIR FUCKING LIVES! Of all the takes on the squid game this is by far the worst.
woah, watch out, all caps over here.
"X is good actually" is always a fun exercise, but sorry he's the most evil person on the show by far, and his seemingly sympathetic moments only make him more evil/manipulative in hindsight. The game is "voluntary" in the same way debt itself is "voluntary" - if you want to ignore every systemic issue that got them there, that either choice they could make would be a bad one. And if you're a part of 49% who wants to leave, tough luck, so semi-voluntary at best. The "voluntary" bit is really just a justification to help the rich sleep at night, which our protagonist and (relative) moral compass made pretty clear. You don't blame the alcohol or the person who "chose" to drink it, you blame a society that's inhumane enough to let a person go homeless. Folks who can watch the series and genuinely not pick up on this...concern me. Sang-Woo is a victim of circumstance, and arguably did what he thought was necessary to survive. Even Deok-Su is a victim of circumstance in a larger sense. Being rich was boring so we made the poor our betting horses, only our horses kill eachother...is not redeemable. Obviously the main villain is capitalism, but Il-Nam is the closest living embodiment, and at least the other animal masks don't pretend it's merciful or fair.
Thank you so much! I have really been trying to argue this point and couldn't find the words.
what i love about your argument "The game is "voluntary" in the same way debt itself is "voluntary"" is that Il-Nam said he got rich by lending people money, which confirms that indirectly people are in debt because of him
Thank you! This is such a horrible take in this video, that I half wonder if Il-nam made it himself
Yeah this video misses the mark in a lot of ways. Of COURSE the villain has sympathetic moments, that's just good writing.
Systemic issue? Like Gi-hun going into debt or stealing money from his mother to gamble? I know these types of people and there really is no way to help them.
Yes he literally is the most evil character in the show. I hope you're joking because the way you rationalize this sounds like mass murderer logic. For the tug of war game you can clearly see that Il-Nam has no locks on his restraints while other characters do so he could have easily escaped if they lost. You say you don't think the Doll wouldn't have killed him but that just a guess. However if you go off the results on the marble game, he let Gi-hun win and Il-Nam still didn't get shot. That proves that he's not putting his life at risk in these games. Why would they kill him for the other games but not for the marble game? Makes no sense.
yeah if you watch back the red light doll highlights people when they are being scanned. the old man doesnt show up on the scanner at all
@@Strawb_Goblin Yeah I've seen video on that. It could be true but I don't think the doll would have killed the old man either way whether it scanned him or not.
the old man does still have locks in tug of war, they're on the other side. i have no idea about the red light green light thing though
@@blizzit1211 During tug of war but not after they win when they're on the floor.
im pretty sure it is a joke! thank god. i was thinking the same thing
That's ridiculous. He's still evi-
"He even shares a pack of noodles with him."
I take it all back- He's amazing 🤩
I swear, it's as if a kindergartner wrote the script.
Yeah but he did that just to convince him to come back to the game.
@@gusvogt-shields4689 yeah ik but I made this comment as a joke :,)
He’s evil. He exploited ppls lives for entertainment and since he’s the founder he knew what would happen beforehand. He chose people who were pretty much in financial ruin and would probably lose their lives anyway. He knew people would come back to compete for the money so him choosing to end the game was hardly a benevolent thing to do.
they were gana die anyway at least thier families get 100mil
Man i found his death sad
the greed killed them
@@lettuce3036 yes organizing a yearly death game where 400-500 people die every time isn’t evil just because “well they were in huge debt already” not like ill nam had way too much money than he knew what to do with and coulda literally given out money or the punishment coulda been less severe than DEATH
He could’ve easily giving out the money of all the squid games instead of making the survival games. No killing and everyone has equal opportunity more or less, but ok …
Or created more jobs or be a philanthropist
well yeah.. but hows that fun?
He should have covered himself with oil 🤧
but you wont watch that, we wont watch that shit haha
For a TV show that could be kind of boring
The old man let him win the marbles game, he could have easily won. He played the dementia card to let him win but at the end he showed him he knew he was cheating him and gave him his marble.
At the end of the tug of war game, as the camera pans down when they are laying on the floor, his is the only cuffs that do not have locks on them.
The locks are still on, they can clearly be seen. When the rope is cut after they win and all fall back, the locks are seen as the camera pans over them.
@@mrn8645 The locks are silver. Look again.
@@rhone7811 - I know, I can see them.
You sure twisted everything to allow yourself to be fooled by yourself. Every villain has a moral code so unless they have a mental disorder, there is no point in pointing out our villain has a moral code. But now onto your points that he did nothing wrong...
1) Regarding that he never forced them. They are forced because the only way to leave is a majority vote, so you are forced to stay if you are in the minority. Signing a form that gives your life to them without actually thinking that you will let them kill you is very different. That’s like a lover asking, “will you sacrifice everything for me?” and you reply “yes.” Then your lover goes and kills your entire family, kills you, and also takes your fortune. That's obviously not what u had in mind even though it was disguised in your promise.
2) His vote isn’t a legit point. It’s not just an unspoken moral code. It’s also his twisted moral code (or he's toying with the knowledge that they will come back out of decades of experience). But that adds nothing to the main point anyway cause his vote shouldn’t matter since he isn’t designed to be in the games to begin with, so many innocents were still forced to die in his games. Btw, the entire bunch that died in the first game had no chance to vote or realize they would be killed.
3) His screening process is part of his justification for doing this and a part of his twisted morality. Why??? Because he could’ve helped them without taking their lives lol. Why skip the part where u try to explain why they had to die???
4) Like he said, he and his friends needed entertainment. You are trying to say he is moral for doing this. More like he wanted to kill people in games but needed to find a reason to live with himself.
5) What sets him apart is that he puts his own life at risk????? Did u even pay attention? HE ONLY JOINED THIS GAME BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD DIE AND HE NEEDED TO HAVE FUN ONE MORE TIME RIGHT BEFORE HE DIES. He didn’t join the game to be fair.
6) Regarding the dormitory riot. Do u block out certain parts of the film to fit your logic? The red enforcer clearly said the riot is part of the games and even said they set it up so players would attack each other. It’s clearly something they are all familiar with. And later on, this aspect was not removed from the games.
7) As front man said, the one rule that can't be violated is fairness. Now, Gi-Hun was supposed to lose, but the Il Nam lost to him twice on purpose, allowing both Il Nam and Gi-Hun to survive. Even your claim that Il Nam's game strictly follows a code is thrown out the window lol. He clearly manipulated the game but you had to ignore that and praise him for violating his most sacred rule.
Omg thanks for this comment. It's so crazy to see people in the comments section try to justify and say people had a choice in fact they didn't have a choice. He is the example of a text book manipulator.
Totally agree. I will add to the "What sets him apart is that he puts his own life at risk????" in that his life literally wasn't at risk at all. When they were all killing each other, he let's Front Man know that he wants the killing to stop by 'begging' for the troops to stop the madness. And he was lliterally the highest and farthest away from everyone so very littl e chance of being involved. He knew what games were coming, so no risk of surprise there. The robot in "Red Light; Green Light" is programmed not to shoot at or near him based on the shots of it scanning the field. For the honeycomb, any guard could have been told to let him pass the game if he didn't make it on his own. HIs shackles for tug or war. For the marbles he obviously wasn't killed even though he lost, so no threat there. And the game that wouldve presented an actual threat to him, the glass bridge, he doesn't participate in because he let himself be 'killed'. Plus all of the guards have standing orders to not kill that man. There was literally no threat to his life at any point. /
And also the old man being in the game gives a disadvantage to whoever chooses him for a team, remember how Gi Hun didn't want him to die during the marbles game and chose him also risking his own life? What if the game was a fight to the death between different couples? Gi Hun would have an obvious disadvantage for having a frail old man in his team.
Excellent post.
Furthermore, Il Nam lost the marble game on purpose. There was no way he was going to play the bridge game, it's too random and there's a chance another would have grabbed the last vest, which was the only "guarantee" of winning.
Gi-Hun never thought to use Il Nam's dementia against him until Il Nam opened the door for him by asking "what did you say?" His whole point was to lose on purpose, and use his dementia to lead Gi-Hun back to his old "house" so that he could be "eliminated" away from the other players.
The thing is that is it really necessary for people to die. Can’t they just lose and go back home?
Not really because you got people like the cop who will trick the system and what happen If that person want to just grab the money that people work hard for
EXACTLY !!! I’ve been seeing a lot of escape room type media where a bunch of rich folks are watching people gamble for their lives idk somethings up
@@gibbyfraustro2509 that doesn’t really justify it
It's very necessary for the purpose of the story. This is a fictional show not love island.
@@jaedeagudera6955 babe we all recognize that, we are just analyzing the story
He literally had a billion for every person he could've just gave it away not like it made him happy
That was my thought too but after i watched the video it started to make sense, even though the players are desperate and in debt they chose to risk their lives over money and play the game, so it technically isn't his fault, he just wanted them to be challenged with something to lose
Yea but like the slap bets in the beginning its easy to convince someone with nothing to risk everything including their body while you have money that's why so many crimes occur because people will literally risk their own life for a little bit of what others in a better place may have
100 million
He was going to die anyway with the brain tumor he had
Or just eliminated the players normally??? Like okay you lost. Go home now.
He was wrong for two reasons. He specifically sought out the most desperate people and took advantage of that. Second in the marbles game he quits, something only he can do. He breaks the rules when actually faced with watching a friend die or dying himself on the bridge. More than likely there were always safety measures specifically for him otherwise why allow him to lose the marbles game and live?
Here's a easy counter point. It's like giving a heroin user heroin and telling them to do whatever knowing that they are hardcore addicted to it and you are just curious to see what they do and they end up overdosing. You are still in the wrong morally even if they volunteered to take the heroin.
Another real life example is euthanasia a person could want to end their life and if a doctor helps a patient do that in many states it's illegal and you would be charged with murder. Although this argument is different than giving someone a vice it's more of a compassion for terminally ill person but in the eyes of the law is illegal despite it being voluntary.
1st example is a little off because the people in the game are heavy in debt. So it would need to be like you have cancer and they give you heroin which might kill you but if you survive and beat the game, you get super medicine that will cure your cancer.
Maybe my analogy not perfect but you're not giving healthy people heroin. Maybe a better one would be giving homeless people heroin but if they win, they win millions of dollars. The people are in a bad situation to begin with is the point.
@@tgo007 they didn’t have a choice in the first game they didn’t know. Technically they didn’t brake any rules just because you didn’t make a score in soccer doesn’t mean you broke a rule other wise you would gotten a card or kick out it just means you lost a point or the game but not broke a rule
counter arguments
3 main characters, they are not people that you suggest as heroin addict. One, trying to get her mother from North Korea, one trying to pay his debt, one trying keep his family. they are depressed, yes. but they are not an addict to alcohol, heroin, or gamble. But they chose to play anyway, they only have bad and worse choice, they chose what they think the bad one
@@zikrim1227 he never said the main characters are addicted to heroin he just said that *IT’S LIKE*
@@amobigchungus9235 and that why i said *these are not the people that you suggest as the heroin adduct* like in his analogy 🤦♂️ no one saying they are literally addicted to drugs
Lol those first 200 dead didn’t NOT get a choice. They did not know they would die. So therefor, they manipulated the contestants. I don’t care your argument.
and he ddoesnt care about what you have to say either?
Even if the games were voluntary, one could argue that the players he handpicked were in such a disadvantaged and incapacitated state that they were not able to make the sound decision to not play. The players were not in a normal situation to even begin with and yet were purposely targeted because he knew that they would take the bait. Even if you still believe that he was innocent, you cannot discount the fact that he has been organising these games for decades, if he was the one responsible for making it voluntary ( by casting that decisive vote to end the games after round 1) you cannot account for all previous games.
I really liked il-nam, and thought his marble scene “death” was so wholesome and sad. I wish he wasn’t the mastermind. I don’t necessarily think he’s a HORRENDOUS person, but him running the game in the end makes me sad because such a good character was ruined.
Why didn’t they use their shoes to test the glass bridge?!? Oh that was soooo frustrating to watch!
Exactly they showed them when everybody took them off too!
They threw one pebble and I threw one remote :)
just further makes me think 1 did nothing wrong. if you think about it, all deaths were either directly or indirectly the players faults. they clearly knew that the game could kill them but still returned, and lots of dumb decisions/not thinking games through fully could have saved lots of lives
@@user-fi2zs2ww1r like there were possibilities for many to win but nobody found the solution? That sounds super reasonable! Then again, the marble one…
@@user-fi2zs2ww1r they didn’t have a choice in the first game they didn’t know. Technically they didn’t brake any rules just because you didn’t make a score in soccer doesn’t mean you broke a rule other wise you would gotten a card or kick out it just means you lost a point or the game but not broke a rule
One detail I found was that everything in the game begins from the 001 player, except the voting which starts from last. This was so Il-Nam could have the final vote...
I don't get why the order makes a difference if it's a majority vote?
How would he know ahead of time that he would end up being the tie-breaker?
Personally, after finishing the series, I wish they could've just kept Oh Il-Nam with a saluted death instead of me having to look at him as a villainous mentally insane person. It could've have set up for the next season of who the Host would be and it would have just shown a heart-breaking sad ending that would trail on throughout but will not go without it's pain and comfort. I still like Il-Nam, but dang it sucks how they gotta hurt the audience in this way.
If there’s ever like a season 2, they should have his son who should actually be the “Front man”, as the new owner with these new illegal death games, on the protagonist side they should’ve have like a sting operation where the main character teams with the military , not the cops since they should be portrayed as dirty for having something to do with the games. They infiltrate the unknown island and capture the front man.
No. You are wrong. But its your opinion. Just because you are rich and bored does not give you the right to play god with people lives.
lol. everyone saw what happened in round 1 and still chose to return
Why not though ?
@@user-fi2zs2ww1r exactly, tf are these people talking about?!! It was literally their own choice
@a Cause and effect. They were decieved the moment they got there. Regardless of if they came back or not. Its call manipulation and gaslighting.
@@shanejohnson6855 i can get behind the first time, there was no mention of people dying and it sounded like a game show opportunity. but the second time? really man? after seeing the carnage that happened (1/2 the original group died) they still went back. that is not manipulation, thats the result of them wanting money over life because of how desperate they were in their current situation.
The consent form doesn't negate liability you can't simply contract out responsibility of a serious crime such as murder even with 'consent'
"if they follow the rules they will not be harmed"
Meanwhile Sae-Byeok...
#1 is STILL evil. Why? He aided and abetted in the death of human life
That last part wasn't fair. Every one knows in a game eliminated means you're out and can no longer play. Not be murdered for losing.
He definitely rigged redlight greenlight lol. He knows when the song is going to pause and he freezes preemptively each time.
The consent forms means nothing, it simply is there to create a false sense of authority since this is all illegal to begin with and wouldn't hold up in court but only serve as evidence against the squid game organization , even prenups if not done the right way can be dismissible in court. The rules on that form only holds value due to them enforcing it, and leaving so many grey areas in any legal documents is amateurish, that's why laws are so long and complex to cover the most grey areas and eliminate misunderstandings that could end up in a loophole for folks to take advantage off. Simply put, they were wrong in my opinion by not disclosing the rules in detail. Still i love this show though.
I remember thinking to myself when I first started watching “what a sweet old man” and felt like that should’ve been a red flag. But by the time we got to the marble scene, I was so in love with his character I completely forgot.
Also. The fact that there is the option that they don’t have to play is so hypocritical and Player 1 knows it, which to me is more evidence of the fact he was a terrible person. Yes, literally on paper they don’t have to play. But he hunted and exploited extremely desperate people who obviously don’t have any other choice but to play. No one there was doing it cause they wanted to be rich if you really think about it. It was to pay off debts and try to start over.
This has "In defense of Hitler" energy
I wouldn’t put him on hitler’s level. That’s a lil extreme
@@JonclaireMusa He's been killing 400+ people for 31 years but yeah Hitler is def more evil than him but does give the same energy
Loved this show. I cried so hard when player 1 “died” and once I saw the last episode I felt played 🥲
Watching “game” shows like Flitch and then watching Squid Games or Alice in Borderland makes me realize that slowly we as a society are working towards death games shows in real life. We are already being entertained by people being shocked or washboarded, or forced to eat disgusting things we normally would not touch. Fear Factor started it all in real world shows, but one day we will probably have game shows that kill for entertainment with the premises of “they signed up for it knowing what can happen, they signed a waiver even.”
Well, luckily, game shows are not doing so well rn so I think they will die out soon.
They could always stop in the majority sooooo........
@@omarasif2068 nothing is going well XD
Honestly, I doubt it. There's a difference between real and fake, and sane people don't wanna watch real people die.
@@demonfireasw1120 True but there are a lot of non sane people
Yet there's flaws in this reasoning:
-The old man wasn't tied up in the game of tug of war.
-The contract that supposedly makes him non responsible is not liable due to the game being essentially a murder game made by him. Where people actively die.
-in the marble game, the old man was supposed to be left out, as seen with the curly haired woman. That would give the man an excuse to back out with the lie that he was eliminated due to not having a partner, yet since he was chosen the last girl standing was left alive. (When given the overview of the marble game you cannot see the old man where he was supposed to be laying dead on the floor either)
- he didn't play the glass game due to being too risky
-he knew the rules of red light before hand, that's why he could easily pass that game.
-all the games were games from his childhood, made for him to have fun, and have a bunch of wealthy men putting bets on the life of poor people.
He did rig the games to his favor. He played only to have a little fun having no consideration for the others around him.
The whole point of this show is to make a criticism about wealth disparity in society and how it affects people.
Saying the host of the game that makes poor people fight eachother to death for a price so they can pay off their crippling debt did nothing wrong is plain out wrong.
The crazy thing is there are probably "real life" Squid Games going on in the world, that we don't know about it!
U not lying bro I said the same thing
No there aren't. You are a conspiracy theorist. Probably an antivaxxer too
you are stupid bro there is most definitely not
the fact people doubt that the rich and powerful, wouldnt get off on running games like this, is more laughable than anything. theres no proof they do exist, yet. but to say theres no way they could exist, is beyond... pathetic and idealistic.
@@carolinemg8256 💯
The fact that there are people defending Player 001 is disgusting.
Hes just giving you choices
Your disgusting
@@DenisShitposter youre not giving heroin addicts a choice if you show up outside a rehab and ask if they want some. you are praying on them knowing you hold power over them. it was coercive af
Sure, he’s not a bloodthirsty maniac. But that doesn’t mean he did NOTHING wrong.
Except he technically is.
He exploited poor desperate people who were already being exploited by an economic system crushing them. He's definitely a terrible person overall even if he has some redeeming qualities. If he truly wanted to help others, he could have. He chose not to and instead wanted to have a sick and twisted game to make himself feel better. That's narcissistic, extremely selfish, and callus.
Title should be: PLAYER 1 IS NOT THE MOST EVIL PERSON
Nah lol, the red light green light doll scanned everyone with a green outline and had a green overlay over everyone except Ill nam. He had a green outline but no overlay. As for the tug of war, his chains had no locks so if the plan failed in the first place, he could unlock it and run out.
I always like how when he was near death expierience he always smiled no matter where you looked if you watch it back trust me Literally a grin on his face to quote HxH _"he in fact enjoys walking beside death"_
I honestly think anyone who defends his character are the same people who laugh at homeless people and think people choose to be poor🤷🏽♀️ it's giving the same energy
Yea this weird opinion of him being benevolent is very tone deaf to the plight of the poor.
WHY?! AND HOW?! I LOVED HIM FROM THE START, HE WAS ELDERLY AND YOU KNOW ELDERLY PEOPLE IN DEATH GAMES ARE JUST NOT THE DEAL, JUST BECAUSE YOU LOVE ONE CHARACTER FROM START DOESNT MEAN YOU WANT TO END THE WORLD, CAUSE MANSLAUGHTER AND GAMBLING ADDICTIONS, BITCH YOU FORGETTING THAT THIS IS A SHOW?! HE HAS GOOD ACTING NOT HITLER 2 FROM GERMANY.
Gosh these ali supporters need to dive into their own brains.
It's really surprising how hard you resist to see that the show tries to point out that what is legal is not always moral and ethical...
Lol this is a reach. He’s still wild evil and totally sadistic for creating this.
1:24 um not exactly, it's called uninformed consent, because they consented without knowing the full story.
They didn't know that everyone but one would die in order for one person to win that money. So it is more like the Hunger Games than you think.
He did something wrong. He exploited people who were in a desperate situation. If he asked random people, I would agree. He didn't. He exploited people who were desperate and in horrible situations.
Yeah but that wouldn't make for good business, now would it?
Him exploiting their poverty so that they would stay in the game instead of going "fuck this lmao" is EXCELLENT for business, plus, if he would just go to random people giving them cards then they would've been put under the authorities' radar, which again, is bad for business.
That and they literally asked them if they wanted to dip, and let them if they chose to go. However, they came back because well, money and desperation
@@AVGyerra22 This is about his morals not his business skills Lmao
@@AVGyerra22 Also like the original comment said, the fact that he gave them a chance to leave doesn't matter because he was manipulating people who were desperate with money
@@fillthecrown7034 i dont think the old man is (fully, there I added it happy now? ) at fault here, as we know even after the old man died the game still continued and still had even before. I think the old man just genuinely wanted to join the "fun" . On the looks of it Squid game is basically gambling but with life involved, i dont think they exploited the players, in order to be called exploiting they should be taking advantage of the players and them having the full advantage, which would be unfair to the other participants also the risks are equal in all the games (maybe except marble) in which he couldve really died, so he is not exploiting. In this case, they stated their rules and contract and the people signed it. The players knew everything in what they got themselves into. Hence it is not exploitative but voluntarily. Yes at first it is, but at the second chance it became voluntary. they were given a chance, they took it they fully know the consequences and are informed, they can choose to go back to normal life or death game yet they chose the latter. If with your logic that squid game is exploitative then every casino, gambling station, businesses is exploitative. People are given a choice, you chose it and you wanna call the person a manipulator when you fully know the consequences and had been given chances? sounds like theyre just unwilling to hold accountable for their own actions if you ask me
Add: srsly people be taking this so personally and putting themselves on a moral high ground is laughable, what has humanity gone to.
🎯
Il-Nam is a terrible person. There is no denying the fact that he created these games that kill thousands of players just to entertain rich people. Even if he showed some signs of humanity, does that really matter after killing thousands of people? His logic also does not make much sense, he thinks people had a choice to play the games which excuses all the deaths. First off, when you're specifically targeting people who are at their weakest points and at their most vulnerable to sign up their lives, of course they'd choose to play the games. I really hate how people see him as this loveable old man, but forget that he caused thousands of deaths and tries to justify them with garbage logic.
💯
I feel like you’re a bit off here. Without typing an essay here’s a quick counterpoint : Yes contestants signed a waiver at the start of the games, and understood they had to follow the rules. but like you said they simply did not know they would be killed if they did not follow the rules. If they had known the punishment for losing was death, it’s logical to believe many people who were killed in the first game wouldn’t have been because they would have known what was going to happen if they broke the rules and would not have panicked when the first player was eliminated
In tug of war, after the group wins, they show everyone laying down and as they scan the players, everyone has locks on their handcuffs, except player 1.
At the start of the tug of war the locks are on.
No, not true. Player 001 absolutely have locks on. I paused and took screenshots of every moment we see player 001 in that game and in all moments, even as they fall backwards when they win and the rope is cut, you can clearly see the locks is on him and the chains connect him to the rope. Just because the last shot in that sequence do not show the lock from that camera angle does not mean it was not there. Just think what that would mean in the game itself, if the others on his team noticed that he was not really connected to the rope.
Only thing he did wrong: not tell the contestants they’d die before playing
This is an unbelievably bad take that makes me question what kind of a psychopath would even make this argument.
Yeah, I can only imagine 10 years ago when the Hunger Games came out, and the look on people's faces if you tried to say, "The Capitol wasn't evil because those teenagers technically murdered each other."
It's very typical of someone who would say " _xyz_ did nothing wrong". The next video title might as well be "make _abc_ _def_ again"
I respectfully disagree.
He says he started this game because his extreme wealth made his life empty. He (and this goes for all rich people feeling sad because their money makes life boring) easily could have started a charity. Improved health care, low income housing, education and infrastructure in poor neighborhoods. He could have given all his employees higher salaries and better benefits. All this would take a substantial portion of his wealth (like the cost of running Squid Game) but he wouldn't be sad and his life would have meaning while actually helping those who need it.
Giving people money doesn’t necessarily mean they use for the right reasons, unless they have good spending habits, which will dictate how their overall life will end up
If he so bored and find thing to be too easy because he rich then he could just try to end world hunger or try achieved world peace you know the thing that no rich guy in the world still can't successfully did but nuh let just make death trap for desperate peoples.
@@verybasicgaming8413 but killing them doesn't give them the ability to decide...
@@Molly-iw1rc that’s why they shouldn’t have returned when had the option to
When you could save 455’s people economic situation but you’d rather watch 454 of them die for your Own fun
No, i don’t see ANYTHING wrong about that
While voluntary I do believe that the evil aspect to everything is his lack of honesty. He knows what's to come but plainly just watches others die for money. During the show everything that is played is reminiscent of his childhood so yes he has the upper hand in all the games. I do believe part of him isn't evil. He's just so keen on reliving old fun days that he puts himself over others. That's the bad part of this while thing. Another thing to note is that the show does a good job of making us see how evil everyone can become under the right circumstances. It's a beautiful show with so makes twists and turns. Truly a thinker
The thing is that the contract signed for the squid games is just to give members a sense that they volunteered. That way they don't chicken out in future games. It's an illusion because, under law, contracts wouldn't be legal if someone was kidnapped and taken to an island to battle for their lives.
“Nothing” wrong is wrong lol, he’s actually sadistic even though he’s not the one who physically kill them.
I agree that Ill nam justified his morals by saying that it was all their choice but it’s still wrong to do the games. When the game is designed for there to only be 1 winner everyone thinks they will be the winner kind of like how in real life people think like that. people think they will eventually win if they are lucky and work hard enough, but in reality no matter how hard we work the system is made to make us fight each other.
Talking about how they 'chose to be there', the staff purposefully targeted the poor so they had no choice BUT to go back, if this were a person of middle class or upper class then theyd choos differently. Also before the first game they didnt know that they were giving away their life? they didnt know what they were signing off on the terms and conditions were never fully explained. Its either starve outside or die in here, not much of a choice? either way you die and either way you suffer theyre awful for that. And the people who didnt come back are now traumatized and STILL living on the street how is that fair? The illusion of a choice is just there so the VIP's and the host wouldnt feel bad.
Choices made under duress, in circumstances that forces you towards a certain desired outcome, can’t be considered a choice, this is what is called an illusion of choice, the belief that you have a choice in a limited parameters, with an already predetermined outcomes.
Regardless of the pseudo reasonings used to explain away the guilt, this wasn’t done for the benefit of the players, it’s a game purposefully made for entertainment, to entice players to commit to a game with intentionally ambiguous rules.
Anything the old man might have done in the game, is rendered meaningless and his intentions invalid, because unlike the rest of the players, he wasn’t there for anyones entertainment, but for his own, whereas they were pawns in a game he set up, forced to play, due to the bad hands they were dealt in their lives.
Even if you explain away this particular round of the game, what about the other games, where he orchestrated the games and watched with his rich white peers.
The old man WAS WRONG, beyond guilty, he is a true MENACE TO SOCIETY. A PSYCHOPATH.
Now this person said it perfectly and gets the whole picture!
🙌🙌🙌
I wouldn't say a psychopath, more of a sociopath. Psychopaths are Born, sociopaths are made. He wasn't born insane, since he had a family.
A psychopath is a psycopath
No matter how much people justify him/her.
The players were specifically chosen because of their likeness to continue to bet, with this the old man is slightly more sinister.
Exactly, the 1st test with the recruiter who would slap them if they lost, it was to see if they would be willing to degrade themselves for money. They were specific in who they picked they looked for people predisposed to addictive/gambling tendencies and desperate enough that they could be humiliated, because then the chances of being able to exploit such people are much higher, its why those people were so in debt to begin with, that combined with how poverty makes people prone to making poor choices which has been studied...which is why its no surprise majority of them came back the 2nd time, it was all reverse psychology from the very start
What about the people that died in the very first game? Yes they voluntarily signed up but obviously they didn’t know they were gonna die, it would be messed up to blame the first person shot for their own death
He literally manipulated Gi-hun to joining back in the game. This is as bad when ppl say “Griffith did nothing wrong” And your last point is absurdly stupid, eliminated doesn’t mean “death” even if you don’t ask to clarify it, because you can’t legally sign a contract to die, so they were also manipulated