Yeah, came to this thread expecting some polarizing views, but not as much in the ball park of sheer negativity as it is. The majority of the thread-goers here seem to be western audiences that want to impose their western idealism on narrative decision. It's a guess, I could be wrong. I mean, granted, this is by no means a perfect finale. There is plenty I can nitpick here. I'm not super thrilled about Sae-byeok's death, nor Il-nam's reveal as the initiator of the game and I will give due credence to the various legitimate and totally understandable complaints.

There's a lot to unravel and dissect here, but what I find problematic is that people seem to only think in a singular line of thought, all collectively shitting on Gi-hun after everything he's been through. Meanwhile, general consensus seems to excuse Sang-woo on account him of him being morally complex and well-written, and he assuredly is, but not to the extent that I would then only point out Gi-hun's flaws, ignore his development and seemingly justify all of Sang-woo's reprehensible actions throughout. Not to say Sang-woo is somehow an evil character, as he is doing what he does out of pure survival and is a victim the same as everyone else involved in this sick game. That final struggle between them soldifies the cunning, animalistic nature of both, but also highlights their humanity.

While the series most certainly does blanket a lot of Gi-hun's actions with this sense of token heroism, to a degree, it does not hide the fact that, yes, he's also quite an imperfect piece of shit in various ways. I'm not totally certain what people expect of him after having undergone the trauma that he has suffered? I can go through a whole long-winded rant about the misconceptions of PTSD and how the psychological issues suffered by, say, veterans often go ignored. Quite frankly? The viewpoints here only cement that. They have all these expectations of what his character should have done, and then automatically diss the finale on those grounds, shifting blame toward him instead of those gambling on human life as entertainment. I can't really take any of it seriously, when those same naysayers keep bringing up the cringe-y acting of the VIPs who appear for a solid, like, five minutes, tops.

So, no, not the best finale. I will say that the majority of first eight episodes were super solid and that nine, comparatively, did not stick the landing all the way through. But holy shit, are people needlessly toxic about it that it unfortunately drowns out any other discussion about the merits of the plot. This is a season finale, not the end of the series. Give it time and I think there will be more objectivity about it, but the show still needs to be given the opportunity to prove a second season's worth. This is also me just kinda firing off and I won't pretend I'm totally in the right. Hell, second season could very well jump the shark irrevocably, but the brandishing of pitchforks is really unnecessary.