(Whole 9 episode run is on youtube for those curious)
I thought it was a solid 5/10 ending. Tied up most of the loose ends but lacked brevity in a way that was highly noticeable. It could’ve been 30 min realistically. I think the whole show is closer to a 7/10. If you know any teenagers/young adults who would enjoy “baby’s first psychological horror” “what if psychological horror but it was for gamers and lesbians” this is a good recommend.
As a tragedy enjoyer, I loved that the circus and abstractions weren’t solved, just coped with and the characters grew from them.
It was fine. I cried a bit. I’m used to finales being a full letdown, so this was actually a pleasant surprise.
spoiler
I wish that there had been more elaboration on the blue AI, its nature, and the impact their merger had on Caine.
I called the “they’re ‘just’ scans and can’t leave” realization from the first episode, but also harbored the incorrect theory that Pomni was somehow a manifestation of the blue AI, so you win some, lose some.
Tyty
i enjoyed it at a 9/10 level.
I can see how you’re thinking on the lack of brevity but i disagree. With the depth of history and emotion it’s trying to convey it could easily have had even more time.
Tap for spoiler
I think of it as 7/10. The pacing of the episode was alright and did not make me impatient to get to the end; in fact, I’d argue it should’ve been longer to elaborate on Caine’s perspective in the second half of the story. I believe the ending could’ve been better but it’s still a good compromise the way it finished on a positive note.
My biggest concern is how the revival of Caine made the impact of his death in the last episode meaningless.
I was a big fan, Jax’s story and their very non-traditional trans story pulled it together for me.
This was really good but…
tadc finale
I just wish it was like plot relevant. Like revealing that she’s trans and then her abstracting from her emotion, OR she reveals her true self to Pomni and is now on the path to de-abstracting. Something like that. Instead it’s sort of this bait and switch of “Pomni is going in to save Jax” “Jax is vulnerable, she’s gonna be saved” “…oh, she’s still abstracted ig. that was a nothingburger.” Basically, I’m fine with the character development but the narrative needed moving around for it to make a bit of sense contextually.
It was alright. Not bad, not great. But your post reads as unusually condescending in a way that prevents open discussion, so I’ll have to downvote
This is a really mean thing to say out of the blue. You’ve assumed malintent when there wasn’t any. I just wanted to give a measured spoiler-free review.
Why did you say something? Like, what was your objective by leaving this comment alongside the downvote instead of just downvoting? I want to understand your perspective but I’m a bit wounded since I’ve been so misinterpreted
This is a really mean thing to say out of the blue. You’ve assumed malintent when there wasn’t any.
This you?
If you know any teenagers/young adults who would enjoy “baby’s first psychological horror” this is a good recommend.
Calling teenagers babies is condescending. Could have just left that word out and write “first psychological horror” or “introduction to psychological horror”.
And regarding why say something: because they want you to learn about your behaviour and be able to learn and grow from it. So they care and think that you can improve instead of being a lost cause, where you just down vote and move on.
Ok, I understand your perspective now, and I sincerely thank you for elaborating. It’s important to hear people out in full and really understand them before you cast judgement, and you gave me this opportunity to evaluate your stance.
I could not disagree with with your opinion more, and find it appalling that you would employ the condescension that you so loathe in your response.
When I say “baby’s first [complicated subject]” the implicit joke is that the complicated subject is indeed not for babies. To Kill a Mockingbird is “baby’s first systemic racism” but that should not be read in a pre-school. Linear algebra is “baby’s first abstract math” but there’s a reason it is taught at the 100-level. I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone would actually feel demeaned by “baby’s first psychological horror,” and if they do, I encourage them to evaluate why being a total novice to a subject gives them such intense feelings of inadequacy that they cannot find levity in their inexperience. The fact that I have to seriously acknowledge that “baby’s first [difficult thing]” is in any way not lighthearted is ridiculous.
His response was not condescending, it was a constructive critique and solid breakdown of why you sound condescending.
There are several things wrong with what you said:
-
You don’t need to be serious to be condescending. On the contrary, your admittance that you view it as a joke is interpreted as a willingness to use “teenagers/young adults” as the butt of your jokes. Which is condescending.
-
I acknowledge that you did not intend to be consciously condescending. But even ignoring that you openly admitted to it (see point 1), that does not mean that other people won’t see it that way. Just saying “I disagree with your opinion” doesn’t automatically cause everyone else in the world to change their interpretation of your words. There is a reason we are telling you that this is a real interpretation of your words, and refusing to accept it also reflects negatively on you.
My advice: do what the other comment said. It’s an easy edit, and we won’t need to be having this conversation at all.
Doing a “this you” on the internet is peak condescension. There are more constructive ways to bring up what one takes umbrage with, and by far this one is one of the most demeaning. Especially when one stands by your quote that the person is viewing negatively (and I indeed stand by it, and spoiler, I will not be changing my post).
I think the quotation marks already existing within my post make it crystal clear that “baby’s first psychological horror” is entirely self-contained with its levity. The only way that someone would take personal offense at this is: A. if they view their age as a point of shame such that they read undue subtext in my post, or B. if they view their ability with the subject as a point of shame that they read undue subtext. In both of these instances, one has to take a very specific, bad faith reading of my post. In other words, I feel that this is a “bean soup” situation, which is not something I will change my post for.
I have made many versions of “baby’s first [difficult thing]” jokes in my real life, in a variety of groups (and in one-on-one contexts), with a variety of ages. Not once has anyone pulled me aside for a serious conversation about this in any casual context.
In addition, I work (part-time) at a tutoring centre, where I have a “tough love” manager and am highly accountable to parent feedback (i.e. on childrens’ behalfs but also somewhat their own whims); I have maybe been written up for tardiness once and never have been seriously reprimanded in relation to either my ability nor my conduct with students, from any avenue. If anything, my flaw as an instructor is my leniency (as commented in passing by my manager and other instructors). I also have never encountered issue as a university TA during office hours. I do make this joke, along with similar kinds of jokes (e.g. to a calculus learner: “this is now trigonometry, which you learned in preschool, so it should be super easy”). Notably, these audiences encompass teenagers and young adults.
If strangers on a text-based forum are saying “there are hypothetical teenagers/young adults that could be hurt by this,” I have yet to encounter this once, let alone in significant numbers or enough to cause issues (until now).
Basically: why change something that causes no problems ever except to you (btw I think you’re generally rather nice, we just have an issue here but other than this we’re chill) and then one other person who can’t help but actually and consciously deliver their feedback in a highly condescending way?
I’m not saying that what you’ve said is intrinsically problematic. I’ve said variations of “baby [object]” as well, there’s nothing wrong with that. The issue is that context matters, and in this context it’s condescending in a way that prevents open discussion.
Any reasonable person would read what you wrote and interpret it as “do you think the show is bad, or are you inexperienced and like baby things?” In this specific case, I do happen to agree with your opinion on the material. But if there exists someone who does happen to like the show, they are now discouraged from commenting and sharing their opinions, because you have pre-emptively denigrated their views.
Starting a discussion (it’s a discussion community, after all) requires more care than usual to ensure that you are fostering a fair and open discussion. With the way that the post is currently structured, I don’t foresee a way that a fair and open discussion can be had.
-
I really disliked it because Jax is insufferable and the episode being fully focused on him only made him more so. The reduced pomni to coddling an abuser while giving him a lackluster backstory. Everybody else got sidelined and the lore just got practically ignored. Huge disappointment to me.
While it was still an okay end for me, your points are also what I didn’t like about it.
While I appreciate the internal look into the psyche of why somebody can become such an asshole, he was getting off too lightly in my opinion. His opening up to ribbit was well acted, I liked the portrayal of that.
I don’t think the lore dump was necessarily bad. But I think that stories should try to not meander.
TADC finale spoilers ahead
The way I see Jax, you can really do only a few things in the finale as it is currently structured:
-
Mostly the same, but she de-abstracts/is on the path to doing so after spending half the runtime on emotionally saving her.
-
Have the major flashback, then abstract her, putting her in the current “nigh unsaveable state”
In the former case, Jax (alongside Caine), would have to actively earn back the group’s trust, because you’re right, she’s been quite hurtful. But in essence, beyond the moral implications, the narrative structure itself leaves something to be desired in this regard.
-
