emmagucci

My point is I feel used, because the story tries to appeal to the majority of romantic dramas' audience (females) with a female protagonist being perfect and at the same time relatable + handsome and high quality males , but also fails to represent more good female characters. Like EXCUSE ME, awesome females are not that rare irl!

they do have their motivation, but are way more flawed, especially SFL. I talked about feminism because the protagonist is a strong female lead, so it's female centric. My problem is that it's also that singular woman-centric.

The most interesting drama I'm watching on air rn.

to make the chair float you need to put force from bottom to top. Imagine you put a band around your torso and a chair. You will move the chair if you move in front, but to move it up you need to band well the lower part.

to make the chair float you need to put force from bottom to top. Imagine you put a band around your torso and a chair. You will move the chair if you move in front, but to move it up you need to band well the lower part.

to make the chair float you need to put force from bottom to top. Imagine you put a band around your torso and a chair. You will move the chair if you move in front, but to move it up you need to band well the lower part.

I'm practically halfway through and unfortunately I notice that it unfortunately has the cliché that I almost hate. To enhance the female protagonist all the other female characters are diminished. There isn't even one that is bearable and equally "unique", beautiful, good, intelligent, astute, etc. And obviously all the male characters seem to see only her... It's ok to create strong female characters, but are the others just npc? If the writer want to be feminist, why are good females so rare in his/her world?

found the discussion. Thank you. (link for those who are curious too: https://kisskh.at/discussions/lost-you-forever/110421-sums-up-important-interesting-story-from-prequel)

he is tied horizontally. It works for the movement like ones in a car, not the vertical flying.

he is loosely tied horizontally, not vertically. If he's so logical, how does he explain that he can float? Is it about his mass of changing the G?

it's not about "where", it's abot it being predictable and dragging unnecessary the plot. We already know the things, they could reveal them faster. Also uses plot themes and cliché seen before and it doesn't help the case.

the ones in which the things the audience already knows or has predicted happen faster.

Must one watch the prequel first?

I imagine the scene. Like they were saying how glad they were to work together and the director was like "I take your word on it!"

exactly my point. The thing is whapped around his waist and the chair's back. It wasn't holding the bottom. So how? (In other words, how could it prevent the vertical movement and why the chair floated too in the first place?)

if it's true, why not also the plate he was eating from? Or the table? Haven't seen him move objects around him in the future eps.

A bit slow for me

In ep 2 when the ML starts levitating, his mom just keeps down the chair his on and he stays down. How does that make any sense? He wasn't glued to the chair or anything.

ep 14 has so many beautiful romantic scenes omg. They are hot and sweet at the same time and really care for each other.

agree