#ki-ask

[kiakss]

Little headcanon : One of the more childlike voices that the Prototype uses in his first conversation with Harley Sawyer was Theodore's.

You dare bring emotional damage into MY sacred kingdom??

I dig this so much!!!

Headcanon swap: the Prototype uses Theodore's voice on his birthday so he doesn't forget the sound of his own voice.

[kiakss]

A lot of people feel like the story of PPT is nonsensical, and that Playtime Co's obsession with turning kids into toy mascots in pursuit of immortality is rather far fetched and hard to buy. But personally, I think it's shown pretty well that the people in the lower areas of the labs are legitimately in some kind of cult. A cult lead both by true believers (Stella Greyber, most scientists) and oppertunists (Sawyer, Ritterman, Leith).

The scientists are quite literally in the deeper levels of a cult, and thus much more invested in the nonsense and dogma of it all. If you decide to look at the impossibly large factory's levels as a metaphorical descent into cult beliefs, you can see that the further down someone gets, the more they invest and sacrifice, the more irreversible the choices one makes, the more fanatical one gets. There's also people like Newman, who grow up inside the factory walls and know nothing else. It's the perfect environment to foster out-there extreme belief systems.

So: I see both angles here.

The reason why many discredit the story as nonsensical is because they were not sold on the initial premise.

The explanation we received is that the Bigger Bodies Initiative started as a cost-saving measure. In this way, Playtime could pursue immortality research while slowly replacing the normal people that need to eat, sleep, and pay for things with biologically immortal assets. Ok!

The problem that crops up for many is that we don't really see how the BBI made any material or quantitative improvement that justified its existence. A lot of the toys made were either for the sake of streamlining the BBI itself, or ended up too unstable to reliably do menial work. There's also the tidbits of information that suggest that toy workers were limited in what work they could do because certain departments did not (or could not) know about them. Couple that with the existence of the Shelf and Theater Incident, and what ends up happening is that the audience is only shown the failures of the Initiative and none of the positives that would explain why it continued for as long as it did.

On top of us getting more information about the BBI being a financial sinkhole versus it actually saving Playtime money: let's look at the toys' work spread.

The Miss Delights, The Smiling Critters, Chum Chompkins, & Giblet arguably fit the bill of unpaid, non-BBI labor by replacing workers needed for the orphans. Chum Chompkins is a dubious fit here because the only evidence of him working comes from Miss Gracie using him as a therapeutic tool.

Huggy Wuggy, Boxy Boo, and CatNap (specifically for Playcare) reduce security costs.

Kissy Missy has done menial work. The Bron in Chapter 5 can... reduce disposal costs?

Then you have toys whose work ties back into making the BBI more efficient (so they aren't actually making labor cheaper, they're making the Initiative neater): Doey, Mommy Long Legs, PJ, Bunzo, the mini Huggys. Doey is in this category because all of his labor appears to be tied to the Shelf, which Playtime as a business does not benefit from.

Then we have misc toys where they were either made solely for research or have no definable area of work: Pianosaurus, Yarnaby, Lily, all of the mini Critters, Cat-Bee, Candy Cat, Bron again, Boogie Bot.

Probably missed some, but you get the gist. The explanation doesn't add up, or at least has not been shown to us through the backgrounds for these toys or supporting documents, so the idea of child labor with a side of dehumanization doesn't click for some. Which is fair!

As for the cult angle... YES. The scientists are so cultish. Their fixation on youth and living forever—truly living forever, is obsessive to the point that they aren't satisfied with the level of immortality they already achieved! They want perfection. They want to be like Poppy.

I attribute some of the cult think to Elliot Ludwig, honestly. His reputation within the company is rock solid—you can't convince me that there isn't a cult of personality at play. Hell, the experiments originated from him and HIS fear. And fear is the driving force of it all, isn't it?

The scientists are here because of fear. They don't want to die. They don't want their kids to die. For scientists like Dr. Newman? They don't want Playtime to die.

[kiakss]

When you wrote about feeling mad/frustrated by Poppy's plan in ch4 something occurred to me. The way they treat her plan in the chapter and how she and Doey discuss it, I sort of had the impression that they used to be on the same page about it before? "We agreed no trace of this place should be left" I think Poppy said, without Doey retorting just how crazy this whole plan is. Like, it's not exactly treated like something extreme by the two of them, and their talks had this very "come on, we talked about this" tone to them. It's like Doey changing his mind was the weird, unexpected thing.

Then chapter 5 comes around handles it much more like one would expect. Giblet and Lily were both shocked or outraged when they learned about it, treating Poppy like she was completely out of her mind (which... is fair 😅). Oddly, the Prototype didn't seem all that angry about the fact that she was trying to kill him and he's more miffed at the idea of her destroying their home. Like he doesn't even take the possibility of dying from this into consideration (I guess he's just that hard to kill). It's just this odd change in tone and writing.

I had to listen back to their conversation for this ask!

By the looks of it, Doey's definitely had this talk with Poppy before, possibly before Safe Haven was ever conceptualized. It gives me Toy War vibes, where everything was going to shit in unimaginably scary ways for these kids.

Funnily enough, the exchange with Doey shows how Poppy is isolated similarly to the Prototype. Too much time has passed.

Goals changed without her. People grew up without her. Societies were established and demolished in the time she spent locked away, and now when people hear what she has to say they don't hear leadership. They hear someone that is misguided and "antiquated." They hear of the destruction of their home instead of a horrible factory.

Now, I wonder if part of why Safe Haven reacted so negatively to Poppy is because she's a living reminder of the past, of the desperation and "nothing-to-lose" mentalities of the war.

Certainly something to think about.

[kiakss]

I super agree with your post about Kevin. He's definitely more than just the "problem child" angry part of Doey. The results of his physical and mental performance in the game station were very good, showing a combination of brains and brawn, so I think he's the part of Doey that thinks quick and acts when necessary. He's the part of Doey who is wary of the player, who speaks frankly and cynically, who is careful around strangers, especially adults. He's alert, looking out for when something is off.

Matthew is the part of Doey who reassures the player and sees the good in them, the one who gives you the benefit of the doubt, and acts like a caring figure towards the other kids. Jack is the part who actually likes being Doey, who can be playful and silly, who relates to the younger children on their level, but who has to depend on the other two boys when he's frightened.

Matthew's problem is that he's got trauma from not being able to save people, so I think he leans on Kevin to be the proactive one whereas he is the prosocial one. Kevin has Matthew's aid to steer his volatile nature and instinct to act out into a better direction, giving him a way to be a part of something cohesive. They balance each other out, I think. Doey probably crashed out so badly at the player because they were all spiralling at the same time, unable to find a balance and think clearly...

Yes! Your observation about the boys as proactive vs. prosocial vs. playful is such a good one! And I do see what you mean about Matthew's trauma and how it plays into the dynamic.

I think that Kevin and Matthew both have feelings of inadequacy, but because the origin of that feeling is different they don't express it the same way. Matthew falls into helplessness whereas Kevin takes his hurt and projects it outwards.

So, I think Kevin's transformation of pain into action also acts as venting for Matthew. Even if things go wrong, he isn't stuck. Kevin will make him move, make him remember his agency.

And, like you mentioned, Kevin gives Doey brains and brawn. People overlook the brains part a bit too much, so he ends up being characterized as a little gremlin that Matthew keeps on a leash until it's time to clobber people. 😭

The way I see Doey's rampage ties back to how the boys react when under stress. Jack gets overwhelmed, Matthew sinks into helplessness, and Kevin pushes back.

When Safe Haven collapsed, Doey was pulled into three directions. But: Kevin's direction is the only one that is externalized. That's why Jack and Matthew failed to stop Kevin.

In the end, the boys learned to work as one at the cost of not really confronting their individual trauma. End result?

:(

[kiakss]

I was listening to the older tapes again and I've noticed something kind of interesting. The Prototype's speech in chapter 3's tape (the one with him and Sawyer) is notably more slow and awkward than his later spoken dialogue. It's possible that might just be because it's an earlier chapter and characterisation/voice direction, but... Do you think it's possible that this was the very first time he tried talking in this mishmash style of speech?

Sawyer mentioned that the Prototype was always quiet up until that point. He was likely listening to the adults around him the entire time to pick up on, record and learn their voices. He might have hated the idea of talking to them in his original voice (because he would sound like a vulnerable child, which he didn't want. Plus, they could potentially recognise who the voice belonged to). This would also mean that he befriended Theo while still talking in his original Ollie voice...

This is such a good observation hold up.

For starters, I love the idea that the last time the Prototype allowed himself to truly be Oliver is when he was friends with Theodore.

We can count on our fingers how many people Oliver allowed into his life. As such, it's significant for Theodore to be the only person outside of Poppy to interact with him. I swear, every relationship of his is doomed! 😭

I was not thinking of Proto's selective muteness when going over his style of talking, but now that you have brought it up? I do think that first conversation is the origin of the voice-switch. His real voice is something he cherishes and only gives up to chosen people, so I'd imagine that, on top of the aforementioned vulnerability, he was trying to maintain its sanctity.

And knowing him? I bet the thought of using the same voice that helps Poppy to converse with the people hurting them was utterly deplorable to him.

[kiakss]

I think people are so unreasonable about Poppy because we have this tendency to look for the good qualities in villains while simultaneously looking for bad qualities in heroic characters.

Within chapters 2 to 4, we see Poppy make flawed decisions that end up backfiring on both us the player and our allies. Despite trying her best, a lot of people still have the impression of her that she's being manipulative due to her actions in chapter 2, as well as Sawyer's attempt to get us to doubt her in chapter 4. People thus end up interpreting her actions in a bad faith way due to this negative bias and then see her running in fear at the end of chapter 4 as yet another "betrayal".

Meanwhile... We know characters like CatNap, Sawyer, Lily and the Prototype are villains, so we don't really have any reaction to them committing acts of cruelty. Meaning, when we learn something about their past or motivations that make them a bit more nuanced and sympathetic, we focus on that. It's interesting for an audience to dissect villains that way.

Couple that with our tendency to hold onto our first impressions of characters, combined with our tendency to villainise female and child characters, we end up in this situation. It sucks, but it helps being aware of your biases and having an open mind.

These are very good points to bring up, and I want to thank you for doing so. There are a lot of biases and predispositions that impact our tolerance of characters and what aspects of them we end up prioritizing.

The issue that I have, and have noticed a lot within this fandom, is that people do NOT even engage with the base condition of the characters: that they're not good people, and I mean flat out dismissals or avoidance of this fact. And so, when we learn information that makes the antagonists sympathetic, it is not taken into consideration alongside their bad deeds—it supplants those deeds entirely.

I do not think it is reasonable for so much of the discourse and character analyses within the community to simultaneously overextend grace to individuals like CatNap on the basis that they're children, but then hold scathing opinions on Poppy for acts of leader incompetence or suicidal ideology that stems from her also being a child.

And that is the part that bothers me so, so deeply about the position Poppy is in. It's like there is an arbitrary line within the discourse that just so happens to exclude her, and so she is made to stand trial as though she innately knows better.

I guess my main issue is that I want like... I dunno. Consistency? Transparency? There's constant hypocrisy at play when it comes to discussing Poppy and I'd rather have people upfront present themselves as apologists than whatever song-and-dance we're doing where her failings are given more weight than the immorality of the entire cast.

Regarding your last point, I actually think you are onto something, although I see it in a different way. Poppy is condemned because of our tendency to villainize female characters while the antagonists are absolved because they are viewed as real, living children, with all the moral, social, and religious frameworks that uphold children as innocent, sinless things.

But because Poppy largely is relegated to a character that tells the Player to do X thing or go to Y place without us getting to really talk with her? She is not humanized enough in the story (for some fans) to garner the same protections as everyone else.

And thus, she bears the weight of everyone's ire.

[kiakss]

What's your take on the Poppy blowing everyone up discourse? The toys don't consent to dying, but they're suffering beyond imagination. I haven't seen anyone mention this yet - the Prototype did blow Safe Haven up (for malicious reasons, yes) but resulting in the same outcome Poppy wants. Her logic feels murky, which I like.

I must confess that I was upset with Poppy over that one. For the whole year actually.

Once I started thinking about it though, it makes sense. The Prototype and Poppy both believe the same thing: "Every experiment after me is my fault. They are my responsibility and I must do what I can."

The Prototype's belief is that there is no undoing what was done, so everyone must make the best of the situation and find joy within hell. If you resist his vision, you have to die to protect the group.

Poppy's belief is that the situation is unsalvageable and time is making it worse. Instead of drawing things out, the kindest thing for everyone is a swift death.

Different thinking, but it causes them to overlap their conclusion: the situation gets better if (some) toys die.

I think it's fair if Poppy's plan makes people not like her, but I do stand by the fact that she was doing it out of the kindness of her heart. Keep in mind: that plan included herself and Kissy as casualties. You don't make choices like that for your loved ones unless you truly believe that living is a worse fate.

That doesn't get rid of the ick of how she ignored Doey's desire to live with his friends, but I do hope the discourse at least acknowledges that every action of hers is her twisted form of altruism—just like the Prototype's contradictory justice.

Some may argue that it's worse that her bombing plan was an altruistic one, but eh.

The adults were depraved and the orphans turned out morally grey. I have accepted that they all think and do things I find disturbing.

[kiakss]

Honestly, I'm sure chapter 6 is going to tackle Elliot.

Both Harley and Prototype were victims of him (and to an extent Poppy) but again, regardless if Elliot hurt them, it doesn't justify their actions.

Like yeah, Elliot was the catalyst for the story by setting up the work Leith and Harley would expand but I dont think its entirely fair to compare a grieving father to a sociopath willing to kill millions of children for science and a man who just wanted profit and budget cuts even if it came at the expense of children's suffering. Elliot might have been the one to experiment first but excluiding Ollie he never caused harm to any orher child; he stopped as soon as he got his daughter back and genuinely believed him, Ollie and Poppy could be a family.

All of Elliot's victims have every right to be angry at him for his actions but again, the game dabbles in morally grey characters. If Prototype has a heart, why Elliot can't have it too? He's not a saint but Im tired of people over villainizing his character.

I'm also worried for Poppy; imagine not only being the reason behind the BBI and Safe Haven's demise alongside Kissy's but the reason behind Prototype's existance and finding out your dad, whom you adore, was worse than you thought. She's gonna break even more now.

I don't think anyone over-villainizes Elliot. He still has as an intact, somewhat positive reputation. If anything, I think the new information is making many reevaluate their perception of him, and naturally people are more critical than they were prior.

I do want to address one thing before I get to anything else: it is not a factual statement to say that Elliot did not harm other children.

Yes, he is not on the same level as the men that came after him. But he doesn't NEED to hit their extremes for us to argue that he exists on a spectrum with them.

His intent doesn't matter. His grief doesn't matter. I know that sounds baffling to say, but it does reach a point where we need to stop offering him clemency because he was grieving.

In Chapter 5 we get notes from one Dr. Arlo where she rationalizes what she is doing because it will help make a better world for her child. Chapter 3 gave us Dr. Clarke, who volunteered for and helped improve the BBI because he didn't want to die of cancer.

In both cases, their participation comes from an arguably innocent, emotional place—but should we be lenient with them just because their mindsets aren't corporate or clinical the way Pierre and Sawyer's are?

Returning back to the child harm: even if we are generous and say he cannot be held liable for all the child experimentation after Oliver (and I would argue he is), what of the generation of employees like Jessica Newman? She is too old to have been raised during the Pierre era. Too old for the transition to Miss Delights and the new propaganda curriculum.

What sort of environment was Elliot nurturing for the adopted and unadopted alike to dedicate their entire lives to Playtime Co.? Not even the orphanage, mind you, but specifically the company. I would say it's harmful if a toy company is running an orphanage to churn out adults with no desire to engage with the outside world and total loyalty to the company.

And in regard to Oliver: is it fair to ignore the kind of man Elliot is just because Oliver was the sole victim? We are reducing him to a statistic, and I have never been fond of that. Sawyer could have maimed ten thousand children. I am not going to add to Elliot's defense that he is the better man because "it was just Oliver."

If Oliver's procedure failed I have no doubt in my body that the same grief that took him would have turned against any and every child until Poppy's reanimation looked feasible. This is not to say that Elliot is being judged because he could have hurt more people, but to dispel the idea that Elliot stopping with Oliver means anything.

He stopped because he had a working prototype.

Elliot does have a heart, absolutely, but it is not villainizing to look at him unfavorably after Chapter 5.

About Poppy: yeaaaaaaah. Her sister died, many of her allies died, her angel died, and she was grievously injured. She was already distant and kind of floaty after jumping the train. She was suicidal before jumping the train.

Taking away her last solace by shattering her image of her father is not going to go over well.

If we do get all of the Elliot lore, I hope the chapter isn't just "Poppy spent too long being untouched so we are now going to psychologically and (probably) physically murder her :D"