gertieblurt

Yes, I hope Sol did give them a tip in the last timeline, and I guess the cops were still a bit of a mess in 2023! Also, I can definitely understand the decision she made and how traumatized she must of been. I think I just wanted to see her overcome that trauma and help catch the killer with SJ, the police, and everyone else.

sachapz answered your question for me. Thanks, sachapz! I would add that I think the timing of their first meeting changes after she goes back in time the first two times, since she winds up getting stranded at the remote bus stop a bit earlier (when she falls in the water after meeting the drunk). This leads the cabbie to actually go to her neighborhood to abduct her even though she tries to avoid what happened in the original timeline (i.e., falling asleep on the bus with SJ watching).

Are you asking when the taxi driver first saw Sol?

Sorry, I thought you were implying that many of the negative reviews were fake. Don't bother with what? I didn't understand your last sentence.

Note: Please avoid reading my reply to sachapz below if you have not finished the drama and do not want to be spoiled.

@sachapz: I suppose my comment sounded a bit bitter, ha ha. Sorry about that and the length of this response:

The problem with the taxi driver is that the drama makes him the main source of conflict and the reason Sol decides to erase her history with SJ. She believes that as long as they meet, the cab driver will ultimately cross paths with SJ and eventually kill him. She concludes that she is powerless to stop this fate (personified in the form of the taxi driver) as long as they are together. The cab driver must be explored in greater depth because Sol bases her decisions on the inevitability of his success. The only way to stop him is to understand him well enough to catch him (or conquer the supernatural forces empowering him), but Sol embraces a superstitious, defeatist mentality by deciding she should avoid everything, including pursuing the guy she loves and the man who attacked them both multiple times, and is seemingly rewarded for that by a final timeline in which the police are more competent and the previously unstoppable cabbie is suddenly vulnerable. This is a convenient outcome that does not depend on her questionable decision. SJ’s memory of their lost time together is also convenient and minimizes the negative consequences of Sol’s actions.

In an earlier timeline, the cabbie killed and buried someone before attacking Sol. In the final timeline, he only attacks someone before he is carted off to prison in 2008. Does Sol’s absence somehow save his earlier victim and if so, how? Is the person attacked seriously injured or traumatized the way she had been? If so, should we question the morality of Sol not getting involved at all and allowing someone else to take her place without at least warning the police of a suspicious cab driver in the area? Are we meant to assume she does warn them in the final timeline? The cabbie spends six years in prison and then seemingly hangs out doing nothing for the next decade until he picks his next victim, SJ’s stalker. Why haven’t there been any other victims during those ten years? One positive result of Sol’s devastating encounter with him in the original timeline was his subsequent capture and imprisonment for 16 years, which effectively prevented him from terrorizing anyone else during that time. Allowing him to wander free for such a long period would seemingly result in other victims, possibly even Sol or SJ (since as long as all of them are alive, they could still cross paths).

When Tae-sung’s pursuit drives the cabbie to his death, Tae-sung’s father dismisses his humanity and his life’s value to assuage his son’s guilt, but a criminal record and weapons in his car hardly justify the assumption that he’s evil, especially in the current timeline where his crimes have been limited. The writers are essentially speaking through the father in that scene, telling the audience not to think about him or his anti-climactic death.

Calling the cabbie a psycho does not excuse his lack of dimension. There are entire genres of fiction and non-fiction devoted to dissecting how serial killers operate. There are multiple books and movies on Ted Bundy. FBI profilers analyze killers’ behavior and the psychology behind their actions for a living. I imagine people who research antisocial personality disorder would object to such a shallow depiction of so-called psychos as nebulous evil with no clear motivations or personality. Moreover, if they are so inherently uninteresting and dimensionless, why bother choosing one as the primary antagonist? I’m not suggesting that we needed a fully fleshed out villain with a backstory explaining why he liked to kidnap and murder women. I’m suggesting that the writers needed to explain and justify his role in this story. How did he contribute to the overall message they were trying to convey, especially when Sol did not seem to play a part in his final end, and what were they trying to say about fate or time travel? Why couldn’t Sol and SJ have dealt with everyday obstacles, learning to face their problems together, and why add a genre-defying killer who was not in the original webtoon? I was expecting Sol and SJ to work together to defeat the cabbie, overcome “fate,” and learn something about love in the process. Instead, he added no meaning or dimension to the story. He remained a problem for someone else to solve, and Sol’s final decision was to do nothing and run away.

This aspect of the plot is never developed. You know as much about him now as you ever will. He's a plot device. The writers threw in an external antagonist to show up whenever they needed to add angst or conflict, and his story ends anticlimactically without the audience ever learning much about him. Many here will tell you that he's a psycho serial killer intent on indiscriminately killing random people, and he just latched onto the protagonists as the ones who got away or thwarted his plans. Maybe chance or fate led them to cross paths, but the writers apply fate and chance selectively when it suits them. You'll probably be happier investing less thought in the storyline. If you're anticipating explanations or thematic revelations, you'll be disappointed.

That goes both ways. I had some issues with Lovely Runner, but I didn't write a review, mainly because I agreed with some of the reviews in the lower/upper middle ranges (between 3 and 8) and my perspective seemed redundant. Plus, I don't like quantitatively evaluating dramas, in general. I think both the creators and most of the intended audience have a completely different take on what constitutes a good story, a well-executed scene, or even good acting. What criteria would I use when so many of the factors I consider important wouldn't matter to the people reading the review? I am an older viewer from the U.S., so I don't think I'm the intended audience.

I'm responding because I don't get why fans here are so focused on the few negative comments, many of which are probably triggered by the uncritical majority. You wouldn't have an average of 9.2 without a multitude of perfect scores, but you're suggesting that this drama is suffering from a deluge of fake negativity? Fake or not, some of the critical reviewers actually back up their opinions with examples and provide more details than the overused generic superlatives favored by many. To the outside observer, it actually looks as if fans of the actors have completely dominated the site and encouraged people to inflate the ratings.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the actors, and I look forward to seeing some of them in other dramas in the near future. While I do think the writers could have spent more time developing their characters and some of the drama's unexplored themes (e.g., the toll of fandom on relationships, living with a disability and related discrimination, etc.), that is not the actors' fault. I think it's nice that many of the fans here can share their enthusiasm with like-minded viewers from around the world. I'm not trying to discourage that. I just wanted to point out that constantly focusing on and denigrating the few negative reviews or comments can be oppressive, especially when critical comments are dismissed as insincere or ignorant.