Lily Lac

I don't think you have read my review clearly. First, the mother case was an EXAMPLE, suggesting there were other cases where she had expressed her thoughts differently. Indeed, she openly expressed herself to her father when she felt he was intruding in her life too much and didn't share important details, she did this with Su yeon when Minwoo was bothering her, etc. Now, are you going to argue that it is because Joon Ho is a potential lover so the dynamics change? lmao.

My problem isn't just that there was a lack of communication, but that it wasn't justified properly and it was a trivial problem presented as a serious problem like some highschool drama. Frankly, I'm no longer invested in these sorts of issues. Since this is a drama, that is exactly why I'm criticizing the writer's execution of it - that she could have made a genuine, high stakes situation without contradicting her characters or leaving holes in the plot where the viewers MUST fill it in, but she chose not to.

I'm quite shocked by the amount of people who can't distinguish the difference between intention and execution. When people say that the "writing was bad," they don't necessarily mean that the writer's intentions were bad or thoughtless, they mean that the overall execution fell flat.. In words, analyzing the the 'intention' is analyzing the plans the writer had in mind, but the execution is HOW the writer actualized her plans. So, I'm seeing A LOT of comments here or in other platforms, such as Reddit, saying the writing was good because [lists the intent of the writer]. Except let's look at the execution...

For example, I'll use the break up scene since I've had many qualms about it in the past. Perhaps we can say that the intention of the break up scene was a necessary stepping stone for Young Woo to understand how to deal with being alone and to make important life decisions by herself. That's fine.

But let's see HOW this was achieved: First, Joon Ho's sister doesn't accept Young Woo (relatively high stakes). Second, a break up ensues by having Young Woo not speak her mind and express her insecurities when, normally, she would (low stakes). And the two couple reconcile because Joon Ho, for the first time ever, expresses how he admires Young Woo's bravery and enjoys being in her presence (low stakes). Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of jubilance and satisfaction in this scene emotionally since it's an "Awww" moment. However, basically the problem was a lack of communication and resolution was to communicate, if we remove all the fluff. Young Woo felt that she was the only one benefiting from the relationship and that she was deadweight, but didn't realize Joon Ho also benefited from the relationship as much as her until he told her directly.
Not only is this a very low stake and trivial issue, but the more glaring issue is that we have already had at least 2 episodes previously that commented about Young Woo's communication problem and how her love of the law also enabled her to grow to express her thoughts openly. This was also a common characteristic of Young Woo despite what she was feeling, for example, when she confronted her Mom by objectively expressing her thoughts outloud despite her insecurities of being worthy as a daughter and her feeling the pangs of abandonment. So, how was this situation different than the break-up situation? The writer did not explain or indicate the difference at all, if there was one!

Good execution can easily be found when reading the works of great novelists. The characters are organic; they live and will their own complex wills. The author may have an intent for each and one of her characters, but their purposes are met over an extensive period through the consequences of their thoughts and actions. While we follow the characters' progress in the story, it is as if we were riding through the currents of a naturally formed river.

EAW was not like this. Rather than seeing the characters' wills, I only saw the writer's, which was to develop Young Woo in a certain way. As a result, the previous actions and thoughts of the characters did not matter and certain consequences were forced to match the writer's intentions, resulting in lot of Deus ex machina moments, cliches, and an unreliable gauge on the significance of an event. There were also a lot of moments that tugged at one's emotions and looked aesthetically pleasing, but when we look at the essence beyond it, as the monk once advised Young Woo to do, there was not much there.

I think most people have problems with how his redemption arc was written, not that his actions were irredeemable. That's to say, there were no previous indication that he was reflecting and trying to improve himself as a person. Instead, he just drastically "changed" by becoming more attentive to Suyeon. Mind you this was the same person who held prejudicial beliefs about Youngwoo and attempted to sabatoge her works on numerous occassions. That he underwent a grueling and stressful environment to achieve what he achieved is no excuse of being a pathetic human being. And the fact that the show attempts to gaslight the audience and absolve his actions when he acts nicely to Suyeon makes it even worse. What is the moral of the story even: that if you treat someone like garbage, all is forgiven so long as you treat others kindly?

"It didn’t only focus on Gureu, but also on his uncle." That's because MTH developed its characters more? The uncle is still interconnected to Geu-ru (GR) and his problems/trauma are all related to GR. It is the exact same as EAW's Junho, who learns about the social stigmas of dating someone with a disability. Had Junho or any character in EAW had the same amount of development as the uncle did, it would not have undermined the story in any shape or form. In fact, if Junho had the same amount of development as the uncle, EAW may have been better and consistent.

"Gureu doesn’t need to fully adapt in the society because he has his uncle and Namoo who are both capable of accommodating him. Thus, the show did not dig deeper on the challenges of people with ASD in social situations." Yeah, I don't think we've watched the same drama. GR, although doesn't need to adapt as much as YW, makes significant progress and growth. The only difference, I'd say is that EAW is more obvious in its social commentaries about autism, while MTH is more subtle. And EAW is told more from Woo's perspective, while MTH's is from both GR's and the uncle's.

I'm not understanding the contrasting points with MTH and EAW that you point out in your second paragraph except that the protagonists' occupations are different and that their rate of interaction may be different. MTH still focuses on GR's perspective and his relationships as a trauma cleaner, and how he grows beyond his occupation (when he helps his uncle). Every point you've made in this paragraph, I could make an identical point with MTH. I can literally replace Woo with GR and the same points would be drawn across.

The essence or substance of something used in the manner we have used previously suggests the primary function or role of romance. You are on point when you talk about "The essence of the romance to Atty. Woo." However, you go off-track when you start talking about "the essence of the romance to the audience," which only explain the details of how the romance was portrayed between the two characters or the thematic point of the episode. I say this because although they are well summarized points, I don't really think it connects to the topic or if it does, it is redundant to what you've said previously. Therefore, I am going to ignore it.

Returning back to the "essence of the romance to Atty. Woo," I think everyone who has acknowledged that there was some function to the romantic aspect agrees that the function is for the purpose of communication (and the social commentaries as well). I don't think anyone is denying that. However, if you read Pete's comment, he wrote:
"Now, we've had this formula where YW expresses herself openly and JH consoles her or gives advice, for 12 episodes straight, but all of a sudden, the writer wanted to remove the couple's key traits without any justifications just to portray this "coming-of-age story?"
This means when the break-up happened, the writer spontaneously chose to change her characters for no apparent reason. YW had a habit of speaking her thoughts out loud regardless of what she was feeling - she would directly tell the people how she was feeling and why. Recall, despite feeling uncomfortable with her mom, she openly expressed her feelings and her thoughts about the situation. She did this with her dad, friends, JH, coworkers, and even people who were slighting her. But just so that they could break up, the writer, as she had forgotten about MW's previous actions and characteristics, seemingly forgot about YW's mannerisms and personality.
"So going through this relationship crisis will help her eventually."
We also understand that the break-up leaves room for potential growth with YW. That's not the point. The point is that the writer could have created conflict in an innumerable number of ways rather than how she did it, which was lazy. The writer removed a key component of YW and JH's interrelationship, rather than creating a conflict with the conditions they already had (this sentence here is my main argument and probably Pete's so read it carefully). It would be as if rather than the uncle's arc in MTH, the uncle was suddenly fed up with GR and steals the money. And the resolution is for the uncle to return the money and rebuild their relationship. Yes, there is conflict with some particular purpose, but would you praise such writing? Similar to EAW, in MTH, we could say there is a kind of "shift" in genre from a slice-of-life to a neo-noir, action genre with the uncle's arc. Unlike EAW, however, the uncle has a lot of development and Junho doesn't, the progression in MTH isn't unnatural, it didn't remove from what the characters had built together previously (rather, it added), and it allowed both characters to grow.

Please, I beg of you, notice that we keep agreeing on the same things? I don't want to keep speaking in circles. Argue against the points that I am disagreeing/criticizing the drama on. There is no need to summarize the drama that I've watched unless it's to make an argument. For instance, you can try to explain how YWxJH's situation differs from all the other situations where YW perfectly expressed her thoughts out loud despite the rollercoaster of emotions she must have had been feeling? Or is there any significance to YW keeping her feelings to herself just as she did in her childhood?

Oh, I see what you mean now. I was a bit confused by your usage of "spelling palindrome" since characters are still part of spelling. I guess you were pointing out that rather than using letters and alphabets, Hangul uses characters, so those characters need to align?
However, I still don't think the word necessarily needs to be phonetically identical, it's just sufficiently the case for most situations due to the nature of Hangul. For example, if a word had two phonetically identical characters, but were differing spelling wise, then it wouldn't be considered a palindrome.

I don't think this is right. The Korean palindromes are spelled the same forward and backwards in Hangul, but if you romanticize the Hangul into English it's spelt differently. For example, To-ma-to in Korean is 토마토, which is akin to kayak, deed, racecar, etc.

"I'd stand to be corrected if you can recall a single point where Junho said or showcased directly that Young Woo was brave for doing something." No need to put "many examples" since I've only requested for one.

Anytime there are two people with conflicting views and opinions, discourse will ensue. I wouldn't call this an "argument," however.

You didn't offend me. I was just annoyed when you keep misconstruing what I'm saying. If you'd like to challenge my claims, that's fine, but please do your due diligence to comprehend what I'm saying beforehand. Better yet, why don't you quote me and challenge me directly based on my quotes?

"However, in EAW, the focus is only in the main character, Atty. Woo, who’s in the spectrum."
No, it has nothing to do with the amount of characters in the show. Move to Heaven, which had almost the exact same details as EAW - an autistic boy who continues the legacy of his father's trauma cleaning business - incorporated romance, but it was done in a normal slice-of-life fashion. It's just common sense at this point: slice-of-life will be bland if what the film focuses on is mundane. Therefore, what film directors should do is focus on the extraordinary or find an insightful philosophy with the ordinary. However, if you build a script that is mainly about romance, but its details are mundane, the screenplay itself will also be bland...

"Ultimately, the romance isn’t here for just fluff and angst. The show wanted to showcase the challenges of the people in the same situation."
I feel like I'm repeating myself ad nauseum. Pete already wrote about this... I wrote, " Pete argued that the substance was removed." To contradict this statement, you must then provide another substantial aspect of the romance that is still intact after the break up scene. Otherwise, what the criticizers are saying still stands, which is that there was no purpose of shifting this story to a more romantic melodrama - that the screenwriter could have kept to her normal slice of life format, which also would not have removed the purpose of the romance.
In other words, we ARE NOT arguing that the romance was completely useless; we are saying that the purpose of the romance was removed directly by the screenwriter once the writer started turning this drama into a romance drama. Please read Pete's comment more carefully...

And you're not getting my point (or any of the people criticizing this drama).

It's generally not a good idea to mix-up the consistency of a particular format of a show. This show was originally a slice-of-life that didn't emphasize the romance, and when it did, it did so with the purpose of showcasing Young Woo's charms and growth. However, there is a drastic shift in how the drama showcases the romance, or as you put it, there is a more "forced" and "obvious representation of the romance" despite the fact of the show never having done this in previous episodes. And to make matters worse, the conflicts caused by emphasizing the romance in the drama led to the detriment of the drama by removing the original purpose of the romance. To put it simply, the show is very inconsistent.

Like you said, there are plenty of slice-of-life shows that don't make the romance obvious and it is just a part of the show, just as EAW was originally. That also would have been perfectly fine... But if the drama all of a sudden just shifts into a Romance drama, attentive viewers are now wondering what the substance was/is or if there was one at all. Some have pointed out that there was no substance, others have argued that there was some substance, while Pete argued that the substance was removed, and you guys are just saying it's okay to have a romance that isn't obvious. None of these claims are mutually exclusive, but you and Camomille are not getting the full picture.

I get that this is a pretty complex argument, but please don't simplify and put words into people's mouths just for the sake of arguing... Nowhere did I claim you can't have a slice-of-romance with bland or "realistic" romance; my argument and others', whether they said it directly or indirectly, is that the problem is if a Slice-of-life drama starts functioning to be a Romance drama just for the sake of fulfilling the romance. A good example of a drama that made this mistake is Forecasting Love and Weather that used elements of slice-of-life as the details of the plot and Romance as the main genre of the show, which only confused and bore the audience. Law School is not an appropriate comparison. It would have been if we were strictly talking about EAW's earlier episodes, but that's not the complaint. The complaint is that all of a sudden, the focus of the genre just changed... A more apt comparison would be like if all of a sudden in the later episodes, Law School was no longer about the conflicts in law school, and there is some high school-esque romance story taking place in law school. People would be perplexed to think if that's even necessary.

It's only noted in the show that he's part of the "litigation team" and isn't an attorney, but as others have noted, his work matches the job description of a litigation paralegal.

No matter how you put it, there are some aspects you put where there is absolutely no evidence for in the drama. I'd stand to be corrected if you can recall a single point where Junho said or showcased directly that Young Woo was brave for doing something. Furthermore, one could see a friend or a coworker in the same qualities that you've listed, and it still wouldn't be "love." You are at the very least making the assumption that his feelings of interest are in fact feelings of love.

It's not a question of taste, it's just the genre type. This show began as slice-of-life that didn't focus on romance, which also made it acceptable for the show not to be so heavily invested in romance. Or, as how you put it, romance done in a "subtle and realistic" way. That, of course, changes in the later episodes and the drama began to emphasize the romance more than the life factors, so people are confused when the romance has little substance yet emphasized so heavily like a regular romance drama. It's as if the writer is playing around with the genres and breaking the "rules" without having the skills to break them like Bong Joon Ho.

Exactly. It really is an insult to poor people.

I also think the writer forgot that Minwoo was a complete asshole. He used selfish, underhanded schemes to try to get Young Woo fired and punished, blackmailed Young Woo's mom, and held prejudicial views about Young Woo even when she proved herself to be capable. It's a joke that the writer thinks Minwoo's character would be morally repairable just by having a poor background.

No one is disputing the fact that Junho fell in love with Youngwoo... They're claiming that it wasn't made obvious and almost redundant at times. That there wasn't any real significance of the romance, and if there was, it was "forgotten and stripped away just to force conflict" by the later episodes.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but watch a slice of life drama with romance emphasized in it, such as Reply 1988, and it should be blatantly obvious you don't need ridiculous scenarios to capture romance well on camera.

Real life is not the same as dramas or films, and while taking inspiration to real life is fine, if your films mimic real life squarely, then the films will most likely be bland - just like the romance of this drama...

"He respects her as an attorney, admire her intelligence, he knows she's passionate and determined, brave and strong in many ways and she's also kind, sincere and pure. She often makes him smile and laugh. From the start, he's had a soft spot for her and I think she touches him in many ways. Does he need more reasons to fall in love?"

The problem is these are just your assumptions, which are probably true but nonetheless your assumptions. The show doesn't do a good job of making it obvious that Junho respects and likes Young Woo beyond a mere coworker relationship except when he screams at people that he loves her. Using our imaginations, we must fill in the gaps of what the show tells us, rather than the drama just showing us that Junho loves Young Woo like every other K-drama.

I'm not taking it personally. I think that a lot of effort goes into these productions so the least we can do as viewers is give well-thought out complaints or criticisms if we were to provide one. If the complaint is as ignorant as the one you have provided, then I will go out of my way to call you out on it so that in the future, you or other onlookers can be more thoughtful and provide better discussion topics within the community.

Did you consult the Google definition? If you haven't, please do... I don't understand why you keep distinguishing complaint from an opinion as if they were two different concepts? A complaint can be an opinion, but it is an opinion that implies the thing in question can be improved.

Your statement is: "Either the writer doesn't give a damn about retaining audience's attention, hoping to get it back in the later episodes, or they're not really trying to make it about the MCs but try to give it a kind of hopeless, it-could-happen-to-you feeling... which they're not really succeeding at, IMO."

By using a disjunctive statement, you are implying that there are two potential scenarios, yet in both scenarios the writer has room to improve. 1. The writer neglects retaining the audiences' attention (so if this were the case, he could improve on this) or 2. The writer is trying to have the audience sympathize with the MC and he's failing that (so he can improve on this).
Someone at a restaurant can say, "the food was too salty" and that would be a complaint and their opinion... Furthermore it is appropriate to say their palate may be sensitive (given others do not have a problem with the saltiness of the food) just like I opined that your attention span may be short.

"....and that's a bit foreboding FOR ME"
Then, you should have simply stated that the drama was too slow for you. There was no need to imply that the drama was faulty or failing in what it intended to do, at least based on what your focus of the show was on, which was the pacing. True Detective, Sherlock, Hannibal, Mindhunter, etc. are one of the most well-received Crime UK/US shows and they pace much more slowly than this drama. As a result, it seems more like a you problem than a problem of the drama itself.

Like I said, if you're going to give such asinine comments without taking further time to reflect on what you've said or what the responder has said, then why should I go out of my way to orient my comments such that its received respectfully? Yes, I've used ad hominems (go watch an action film is not an ad hominem, btw), but I've also made my point - that the pacing of the drama is totally acceptable within its genre, and to have it otherwise would be strange. If you think simply using ad hominems detracts from someone's views (outside of mannerisms), then I advise you to look at the full context of ad hominems. It's a fallacy because rather than attacking the substance of the opponent's argument, you attack the opponent's character; it would be akin to someone arguing that smoking is bad for you and the opponent responds with, "well you smoke too," which would be fallacious just by itself. However, unlike the provided example, I didn't just attack your character. I've laid out an argument that attacked the substance of your argument as well; those ad hominems were auxiliary statements that you can ignore completely and my main argument would still be sufficient enough. You can try to rebut my statements, and I will respond accordingly, but notice that you have not made a single point to challenge my statements except that it's just your opinion. I hope you know, people can state wrong opinions and right opinions. Simply uttering, "It's just my opinion" is not some get-out-of-jail card... And for the last time, I am okay with GOOD dissenting opinions, but your dissenting opinion was thoughtless.

We can stop once you acknowledge your mistakes lol.

I suggest you to reread your 2nd paragraph and look at the definition of a 'complaint.'
I'm totally fine with criticisms or complaints, but if you are going to try to fault a writer of a Crime drama for literally writing a Crime drama, then expect to get called out for it. My suggestion to watch an action film was my attempts of being more courteous than directly calling you an ignoramus, but oh well.

Or you may just have a short attention span...
Most crime dramas are slower and emphasizes the smaller details, the dialogue, and the characters' emotions and psychological states. For this genre, the drama's pacing is completely fine. If you want something that is quicker paced, go watch an action film instead of complaining about it.

If you want to learn something: "If you want to criticise religion, do so after taking a course on religion or after reading a single religious thinker."
Let me spell it out for you; being religious is merely an attribute and it's an attribute of the broadest kind. Just like race, height, wealth, etc. are all different forms of attributes that broadly correlate with other attributes.
If a bunch of wealthy people were depicted as the devil incarnate in some lame drama and someone claimed, "I met a bunch of rich people and this is all too real," you'd assume that person is a bigot, hopefully. The same should apply to demonizing short people, tall people, attractive people, ugly people, of a particular race, etc.
In case you're not getting what I'm claiming, you don't fight fanaticism with fanaticism, lest you want to be a hypocrite...

"Yes, the context Marx used that idea in is institutional oppression, I did not say otherwise... It's obviously my appreciation of his original quote."

You're seriously going to feign having knowledge of the context despite being clueless when I first mentioned what the context was? It's fairly obvious that you've probably consulted Google for the context and you're only now understanding what my point is.
All you did was provide a descriptive account for what religion is; of course, it's going to fit what you said in some manner as long as the description you've provided is somewhat accurate. It would be analogous if I claimed, "Cooking is the practice of manipulating different key ingredients." Then, I also wrote, "As Gordon Ramsey said, 'There are endless ways to cook.'" You would also get the impression from my statement that Gordon Ramsey claimed you can cook in an infinite different ways with unlimited amount of creativity and freedom. But, what if the entirety of his quote was, "There are endless ways to cook. But there are only a few ways to cook properly?" Now, my initial assertion is contradicted by the actual quote. However, my original claim, "Cooking is the practice of manipulating different key ingredients" can still match either quotes, because all I have done is provide a description for cooking. We can essentially replace "Cooking" for "the practice of manipulating different key ingredients" and replace "cooking" with the phrase in either quotes and it would SEEM as if my original point still matches, but that is just a semantical trick. I didn't get the original point in this example, just like you also probably didn't get the original point.
This was just to explain why you would get the impression that your original point still matched the new discovery of information, if you looked only at the original statement by itself while neglecting your original intentions for introducing the quote. Now, I will explain why your context doesn't align either.

"People turn to religion during their moments of confusion to find solace and temporary relief. An 'opium'"
Yeah, that's not how Marx viewed religion. And in case, you try to weasel your way of out this by claiming that's not what you've intended, notice that this is another descriptive claim except you emphasize "temporary relief" implying that religion doesn't fix the problem wholly, but only provides relief momentarily. It implies that religion isn't functionally fixing the problem properly and serves to instigate the problem further. Assuming you figure out a different obscure explanation after I provide my explanation like before, the context from Marx definitely does not match the message that is depicted in Hellbound.

In the original context of Marx, "opium" could have been replaced with "medicine" and it could have fit the original context. Marx wasn't interested in replacing or overthrowing religion; he wasn't even criticizing religion itself. His only assertion about religion is that it was man-made and reveals the nature of the world of the populous. The pleading of the religious indicates how the proletariats dealt with institutional oppression. As a result, the only criticism Marx can give on religion is that the religious should not give up their fight against the oppressors by focusing on the promises of the Eternal/Heaven, but must also ground themselves within the present. Marx even begins the passage where the quote is found, by noting the numerous benefits that religion provides in the oppressive world, and ends that either man will lead himself or be lead by religion. This directly contradicts Hellbound's message to have man be lead by himself. Marx examined religion more sociologically, while this drama only seems to be criticizing it.