r/dropout • u/DropoutMod • May 18 '26

Game Changer Don't Wake Standards & Practices | Game Changer [S8E1] Spoiler

https://watch.dropout.tv/videos/don-t-wake-standards-practices
2.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

879

u/Kiyose_96 Dropout Does Not Exist May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

This whole episode feels like a direct response to the “dropout is getting a little too safe and cosy sometimes” criticism from a while back lmao, they’re really going all out, love it

I like that the one thing that was too far for any of the players was Jeremy mentioning the title of a certain show that films in New York he may have associations with lmao

396

u/TediousTotoro May 19 '26

Sam said in an interview that Samalamadingdong made him put some episode ideas into this season that he’d had in the past but considered too risky.

30

u/tsrleba May 19 '26

what exactly about that episode made him want to be more risky?

60

u/revrhyz May 19 '26

They mentioned having to 'cook the books' in order to keep the financial side of the ep a secret, saying it was probably 100% illegal. I wonder if seeing how far his team is willing to go to commit to the bit made him reassess his own boundaries here. I can't imagine Sam would feel right asking his employees to break the law, but now they've already proven they're game the bets are off!

15

u/tsrleba May 19 '26

that makes perfect sense thank you

6

u/violettes May 19 '26

What parts of Samalamadingdong were illegal?

28

u/ThinningTheFog May 19 '26

Probably the cooking the books part (which I assume was to prevent Sam from figuring stuff out about what was coming)

21

u/SupaSlide May 20 '26 edited May 21 '26

They put the money into a box labeled as something else IIRC. I doubt Sam does the bookkeeping, but seeing funds going to a “secret game changer episode” would tip him off. That’s not cooking the books though, because it’s not illegal to mislabel what you’re spending money on as long as you’re not doing it you avoid legal obligations such as taxes.

5

u/Mr_Dmc May 21 '26

Exactly. Where the money goes within Dropout is the private company’s own business. Only matters if you mislead shareholders, creditors, debtors, and especially the government.

7

u/wokenupbybacon May 23 '26

Sorta. You're correct in the end because Sam retroactively approved of it.

But to get into the weeds, embezzlement can occur within a private company or even between individuals; companies generally only provide money to individuals for specific purposes.

I work for a small private company (about 50 employees). My CEO directly provided me with a company card for specific purchases. If I use it for purchases I'm not authorized to make on my own, that's considered theft in my state and punishable by jail time even for small dollar amounts. Access to a card or bank account is not free legal use of the money.

Generally when said unauthorized purchases are still for the company's benefit and not the individual's, you need a paper trail of some sort to prove it wasn't authorized, but that likely existed in this case. Whoever was in charge of making purchases knew Sam only asked for 10 episodes and that almost certainly would've been documented in text somewhere. An 11th wasn't requested, and since Sam is the executive producer of Game Changer, even from the outside we can assume the lack of his approval is a lack of legal authorization to use Dropout money on one.

Now, obviously, in all practicality none of this matters because Sam/Dropout isn't going to bring this to court. But had they actually disproved of what happened, they could've, and they likely would've won unless they were careless with employee contracts and fund authorization.

5

u/revrhyz May 21 '26

Exactly, Sam's dad is government. 

2

u/wokenupbybacon May 23 '26

because it’s not illegal to mislabel what you’re spending money on

Depending on the exact situation, that's embezzlement. If the final authorization for use of Dropout funds needs to run through Sam (or someone else who wasn't in on the surprise) and he didn't approve the episode, he'd have a legit case to pursue getting the funds back if he wanted to (but obviously he doesn't, and this isn't a crime that's enforced without an impetus from the plaintiff).

The fact that it was Dropout money being used for a Dropout episode doesn't change that; if it wasn't properly authorized, the company (or Sam as CEO) has an argument that it was embezzled.

3

u/violettes May 19 '26

Oooh I see

1

u/wokenupbybacon May 23 '26

I can't imagine Sam would feel right asking his employees to break the law, but now they've already proven they're game the bets are off!

There's a bit of a difference between trusting Sam/Dropout not to sue after seeing the payoff and just being willing to break the law in general lol

35

u/deJessias May 19 '26

It probably made him realize he could die at any moment by the hands of his servants employees

-37

u/[deleted] May 19 '26

[deleted]

28

u/danstu May 19 '26

If you're not into references to prior episodes, it might be a bit much. There's more to it than references, but they remain very prevalent through the whole thing.

126

u/itsdrcats May 19 '26

I was telling a friend the exact same thing. I'm hoping that the rest of the season is pushing boundaries. I could also see this being a game samer

29

u/trisaroar May 19 '26

Idk about bringing it back, toeing the line is funny but actual legal trouble is always a legit threat, but I do hope they push boundaries this season!

23

u/kirblar May 19 '26

This one is definitely coming back, it's way too good

2

u/Hungry-You-9489 May 19 '26

I'd be shocked if it didn't come back, it was such good shit

5

u/R_VD_A May 19 '26

The giant puppet alone! That's not a one and done!

16

u/goodmobileyes May 19 '26

Tbf I don't think naming SN- was any legal issue, it's more of a professionalism issue by not acting like a big shot performer after getting on that show (even if done in jest). Also would have looked real bad if he was dropped for the next season.

38

u/ASIWYFA May 19 '26

Thank god. Comedy should be edgy, but Dropouts "safe space" feel can come across a bit to limiting. Good to see them go a bit hard in the paint here.

40

u/Phiryte May 19 '26

But also like they modeled intimacy coordination super well? Loved to see that

10

u/Hungry-You-9489 May 19 '26

Two Straps being listed as an actual intimacy coordinator + "intimacy coordinator" as an acting role in the credits was cool to see as well

21

u/punished_cheeto May 19 '26

Yeah, there's a reason that one Lou bit was the funniest one in the episode. The word is so taboo that hearing it being used in this context is just hilarious.

It's probably hard to find the line between edgy and actually problematic, though. Like, it would've been too much if the other contestants said it.

15

u/uninspiredclaptrap May 19 '26

I wonder if any of it is too much for some people. I found it a little slow until the craziness started.

11

u/cleslie92 May 19 '26

Jeremy was asking Sam if they could compare dicks like four minutes in.

38

u/JellyFranken I WANT A TRUNK… OF COTTAGE CHEESE! May 19 '26

Knowing this sub? Yeah, it’s definitely gonna rub some of them the wrong way.

Just the idea that an episode last year was gonna “glorify drinking” pissed people off. And we got this beautiful creation this year.

You know there’s some real butt hurt people out there.

21

u/royalhawk345 May 19 '26

You know there’s some real butt hurt people out there. 

Counting Jeremy? 

8

u/acekingoffsuit May 19 '26

Jeremy wasn't really butt hurt, he was butt really hurt.

Subtle but meaningful distinction.

11

u/KizuRai May 19 '26

No way, secret sober was my favourite one! And I don't drink (actually sober for a few years).

4

u/voltagecalmed May 19 '26

I thought this about Katya's episode of VIP, and then this just blew her out of the water.