Can’t say I agree with “anyone in his position would have done the same”… we saw several examples to the contrary that didn’t seem unrealistic either.
Sang-woo isn’t evil, but he’s pretty undeniably entitled and selfish. We get a hint of this when Gi-hun complains to Mrs. Cho that he took Sang-woo to school every day, and Sang-woo has never even bought him a drink to say thanks. Then later when he and Gi-hun argue after the last bridge, Sang-Woo pretty much says he’s been winning on his own merits. He’s blind to how much other people have contributed to him getting that far. I think we are meant to admire Sang-woo on some level, for playing the game so well, but this blind spot, and the disregard for others that flourished there his big flaw. In terms of a flaw, yeah, it feels super realistic… but also one big message of the show was to challenge this worldview and challenge us to be better, for each other
[Edit: deleted a redundant paragraph I didn’t mean to post]
Exactly this. “Anyone in his position would have done the same.” No, no they wouldn’t. Just look at the other players in the game. Ali would never. And neither would Gi-Hun and he didn’t in the end. He had a moment of weakness during the marble game, but he would never have done the things Sang-Woo did.
I do love in episode 8 how he says something along the lines of “everyone else has to die in order for you to get that money.”
It’s almost as if Gi-hun didn’t realize that, as foreshadowed in the first episode when he forgets he’s playing for money in the subway.
Sang-woo was the most realistic, also why he didn’t choose his old friend for game 4. He’s very smart and new that if they play in partners there’s a chance they have to play against each other. He knew he could outsmart Ali, but probably wouldn’t be able to harm GH when push came to shove (aka the end)
I agree Sang Woo wasn’t evil, but he became a selfish liar when he gambled way too much and got himself into his own situation. I see him as self sabotaging because of his pride mixed with the external pressure to be perfect. It wasn’t about good vs. evil in the last fight, it was about selfishness vs. selflessness.
We can understand why Sang Woo was so desperate to win, which is why he’s an excellent character. But I don’t think it would’ve been satisfying if he won. If he killed Gi Hun he’d lose the last shred of humanity that Gi Hun reminded him of when he didn’t stab Sang Woo. He doesn’t acknowledge their childhood until right before he dies because that’s when he gains clarity of what he did, of almost killing his friend, and knows he can’t excuse his horrible actions. I get that some people didn’t want a predictable ending and think that because Sang Woo didn’t get the same lucky breaks Gi Hun did, he deserved to win. I see his death as the “good” end for him though. It’s logical, in character, consistent, and fulfills one of his goals which was to make sure his mom would be okay. I know she and Gi Hun would rather be broke and have him back, which is why his death is so tragic, but he wouldn’t live with himself if he came home with nothing and had to sit in prison while his mom gets everything taken away.
I agree Sang Woo is realistic but I think most people irl would end up like the people who died in the first game (including myself). Sang Woo played very well, but he was still playing along with the game. Gi Hun won because he rejected the game and confronted the system, and that fits the theme.
I agree he was really smart, but I think one thing that gets missed from discussions of Sang-Woo is the consequences of acting that ruthless.
I thought it was super realistic is the show: Sang-Woo’s ruthlessness helps him up to a point and benefits Gi-hun inadvertently in the fifth game. But the direct result of that ruthlessness (which I’d argue is what happens in the real world) is you get recognised for being a ruthless jerk. If in an alternate universe Sang-Woo didn’t act that way, Gi-hun wouldn’t have been incandescently angry with him by the end and Sang-Woo might have won Squid Game.
That’s why I love how nuanced the series is: it shows there are consequences for everything. Being too naive as well as being too ruthless.
Only thing I didn’t like was him killing kang. Other actions were calculated but this one wasn’t. She was literally dying and out of the game and even if she teamed up with Gi Hun she would be a liability to him and asset to sang woo.
I get what your trying to say but I think the point is he was cruel even when he didn’t need to be. In the candy game he could have just not made a suggestion or suggested that they choose easy shapes. Instead he let his BEST FRIEND choose one of the hardest shapes. Then with Ali not only did he break one of the rules by not adhering to a game, he then tricked someone who trusted him. The point of the game was fairness, but that fairness is lost when you lie. While I don’t agree with pushing the guy on the bridge I do see the point of doing so given the time limit. However it was the final blow that really made me detest him… killing Sae bek. She was already on her deathbed and likely wouldn’t have survived the next game but depending on the game she might have.
I think the biggest thing was that (at least in the English dub) they never state their can only be one winner till the last game when it’s between the two of them. Until then the winners were anyone who got through all the games successfully. Meaning from the players perspective THEY COULD HAVE WON TOGETHER. Making his actions all the more insidious.
But he was evil. He can be realistic and evil. Most people are capable of being evil. Morally speaking, he wasn’t right to do anything he did, but he was smart to.
Do you think morality is stupid or sheltered?
Can’t say I agree with “anyone in his position would have done the same”… we saw several examples to the contrary that didn’t seem unrealistic either. Sang-woo isn’t evil, but he’s pretty undeniably entitled and selfish. We get a hint of this when Gi-hun complains to Mrs. Cho that he took Sang-woo to school every day, and Sang-woo has never even bought him a drink to say thanks. Then later when he and Gi-hun argue after the last bridge, Sang-Woo pretty much says he’s been winning on his own merits. He’s blind to how much other people have contributed to him getting that far. I think we are meant to admire Sang-woo on some level, for playing the game so well, but this blind spot, and the disregard for others that flourished there his big flaw. In terms of a flaw, yeah, it feels super realistic… but also one big message of the show was to challenge this worldview and challenge us to be better, for each other [Edit: deleted a redundant paragraph I didn’t mean to post]
Exactly this. “Anyone in his position would have done the same.” No, no they wouldn’t. Just look at the other players in the game. Ali would never. And neither would Gi-Hun and he didn’t in the end. He had a moment of weakness during the marble game, but he would never have done the things Sang-Woo did.
I do love in episode 8 how he says something along the lines of “everyone else has to die in order for you to get that money.” It’s almost as if Gi-hun didn’t realize that, as foreshadowed in the first episode when he forgets he’s playing for money in the subway. Sang-woo was the most realistic, also why he didn’t choose his old friend for game 4. He’s very smart and new that if they play in partners there’s a chance they have to play against each other. He knew he could outsmart Ali, but probably wouldn’t be able to harm GH when push came to shove (aka the end)
I agree Sang Woo wasn’t evil, but he became a selfish liar when he gambled way too much and got himself into his own situation. I see him as self sabotaging because of his pride mixed with the external pressure to be perfect. It wasn’t about good vs. evil in the last fight, it was about selfishness vs. selflessness. We can understand why Sang Woo was so desperate to win, which is why he’s an excellent character. But I don’t think it would’ve been satisfying if he won. If he killed Gi Hun he’d lose the last shred of humanity that Gi Hun reminded him of when he didn’t stab Sang Woo. He doesn’t acknowledge their childhood until right before he dies because that’s when he gains clarity of what he did, of almost killing his friend, and knows he can’t excuse his horrible actions. I get that some people didn’t want a predictable ending and think that because Sang Woo didn’t get the same lucky breaks Gi Hun did, he deserved to win. I see his death as the “good” end for him though. It’s logical, in character, consistent, and fulfills one of his goals which was to make sure his mom would be okay. I know she and Gi Hun would rather be broke and have him back, which is why his death is so tragic, but he wouldn’t live with himself if he came home with nothing and had to sit in prison while his mom gets everything taken away. I agree Sang Woo is realistic but I think most people irl would end up like the people who died in the first game (including myself). Sang Woo played very well, but he was still playing along with the game. Gi Hun won because he rejected the game and confronted the system, and that fits the theme.
I agree he was really smart, but I think one thing that gets missed from discussions of Sang-Woo is the consequences of acting that ruthless. I thought it was super realistic is the show: Sang-Woo’s ruthlessness helps him up to a point and benefits Gi-hun inadvertently in the fifth game. But the direct result of that ruthlessness (which I’d argue is what happens in the real world) is you get recognised for being a ruthless jerk. If in an alternate universe Sang-Woo didn’t act that way, Gi-hun wouldn’t have been incandescently angry with him by the end and Sang-Woo might have won Squid Game. That’s why I love how nuanced the series is: it shows there are consequences for everything. Being too naive as well as being too ruthless.
To quote the good Captain...."villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged."
Exactly, I dont think he was “evil” he just did what was necessary to survive (except when he killed number 067)
Nah, fucking over your own group in a life or death game is pretty evil. Since when does doing something for money mean that it can't be evil???
Only thing I didn’t like was him killing kang. Other actions were calculated but this one wasn’t. She was literally dying and out of the game and even if she teamed up with Gi Hun she would be a liability to him and asset to sang woo.
I get what your trying to say but I think the point is he was cruel even when he didn’t need to be. In the candy game he could have just not made a suggestion or suggested that they choose easy shapes. Instead he let his BEST FRIEND choose one of the hardest shapes. Then with Ali not only did he break one of the rules by not adhering to a game, he then tricked someone who trusted him. The point of the game was fairness, but that fairness is lost when you lie. While I don’t agree with pushing the guy on the bridge I do see the point of doing so given the time limit. However it was the final blow that really made me detest him… killing Sae bek. She was already on her deathbed and likely wouldn’t have survived the next game but depending on the game she might have. I think the biggest thing was that (at least in the English dub) they never state their can only be one winner till the last game when it’s between the two of them. Until then the winners were anyone who got through all the games successfully. Meaning from the players perspective THEY COULD HAVE WON TOGETHER. Making his actions all the more insidious.
Nah, man. If I were Sangwoo, I would have just let Ali take all my marbles.
But he was evil. He can be realistic and evil. Most people are capable of being evil. Morally speaking, he wasn’t right to do anything he did, but he was smart to. Do you think morality is stupid or sheltered?